Skip to main content

Full text of "The Life Of John Maynard Keynes"

See other formats 


THE  LIFE  OF 
JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 


THE  LIFE  OF 
JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 


BY 

R.  F.  HARROD 


L 


< 


A ' 


« V 


N 


LONDON 

MACMILLAN  & GO.  LTD 


TO 

F.  A.  K. 


PRINTED  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN 


PREFACE 


WHEN  I decided,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Geoffrey  Keynes, 
to  undertake  the  task  of  writing  a Life  of  his  brother, 
John  Maynard,  I was  fully  conscious  of  the  serious 
difficulties  with  which  I should  be  confronted.  Maynard  Keynes 
made  contributions  to  the  theory  of  economics  which  have  had 
great  influence,  and  was  playing  an  important  part  in  public 
affairs  during  the  period  immediately  before  his  death.  In  regard 
to  both  these  activities  it  may  be  said  that  the  time  has  not  yet 
come  when  we  can  form  a final  estimate;  we  need  a longer 
perspective.  This  objection  to  an  early  Life  is  certainly  a weighty 
one.  There  appeared  to  me  to  be  considerations  which  out- 
weighed it. 

Keynes’  contributions  to  the  theory  of  economics  tended  to  be 
closely  related  to  his  practical  proposals,  and  these  in  turn  were 
also  influenced  by  his  general  philosophy.  An  understanding  of 
the  background  of  his  thought  is  indispensable  for  a correct  inter- 
pretation of  his  conclusions.  Fiurthermore,  I venture  to  think 
that  those  who  come  after  will  be  interested  in  Keynes,  not  only 
on  account  of  his  teachings  and  influence,  but  also  for  what  he 
was  in  himself.  If  I am  right  in  supposing  that  he  was  one  of  the 
greatest  Englishmen  of  his  age,  then  it  is  expedient  that  an  attempt 
should  be  made  to  bring  together  all  the  varied  aspects  of  his 
character  and  interests  into  a single  biography. 

Once  that  is  granted,  it  follows  that  diere  is  some  need  for 
haste.  There  are  relevant  matters  of  which  there  is  no  published 
record.  Many  of  those  who  knew  Keynes  well  in  his  early  days 
may  have  glassed  from  the  scene  in  ten  or  twenty  years  from  now. 
If  I have  made  mistakes  of  emphasis  in  regard  to  economic  theory 
or  historical  events,  through  lack  of  sufficient  perspective,  these 
can  be  corrected  by  future  students.  My  task  has  been  to  save 
them  from  mistakes,  which  there  would  latet  be  no  one  to  correct. 
I cannot  (Conceive  how  a future  student,  however  conscientious 
and  able,  who  had  had  first-hand  knowledge  neither  of  Keynes 
nor  of  the  intellectual  circles  which  formed  his  environment, 
could  fliil  to  fall  into  grievous  errors  of  interpretation.  It  is  my 


v 


vi  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

hope  that  at  least  some  of  these  may  be  rendered  impossible  by 
this  book. 

An  objection  of  a more  trivial  kind  which  occurred  to  me  was 
the  fact  that  I am  an  Oxford  man.  There  are  in  Cambridge 
economists  of  high  standing  who  were  naturally  In  closer  contact 
with  Keynes  than  I.  There  is  something  to  be  said  for  the  relative 
detachment  of  an  Oxford  observer;  his  attention  is  inevitably 
struck  by  certain  features  in  the  Cambridge  scene,  good  or  bad, 
which  a Cambridge  man  would  overlook  because  he  took  them 
for  granted.  In  further  extenuation  I would  add  that  I spent  a 
term  in  Cambridge  studying  under  Keynes,  that  I have  main- 
tained fairly  regular  contact  since,  and  that  I am  conscious  of 
owing  much  to  Cambridge.  Oxford  has  its  own  glories  and 
precious  qualities  which  are  unique ; on  the  purely  intellectual 
plane  I tended  in  my  early  years  to  feel  a closer  affinity  with 
Cambridge. 

One  of  my  senior  colleagues  recently  remarked  to  me  that  he 
supposed  that  my  book  would  be  in  the  nature  of  an  encomium. 
Throughout  my  labours,  1 have  set  it  steadily  before  me  as  my 
objective,  to  present  all  materials  which  would  enable  the  reader 
to  form  a balanced  judgment.  In  one  respect  I rest  comfortably 
in  the  confidence  that  my  book  contains  loo  little,  not  too  much, 
praise.  In  a man  of  genius,  of  intense  individuality,  alive  in  every 
pore,  there  is  a vital  spirit  which  no  biography  can  portray.  If 
any  reader  is  impressed  by  my  representation,  I can  assure  him 
that  he  would  have  been  much  more  impressed  by  the  man 
himself.  No  words  can  recapture  the  living  essence. 

In  regard  to  his  faults,  I am  not  conscious  of  any  suppression. 
Criticisms  have  been  made  by  the  malicious  or  ill-informed  which 
have  no  foundation  in  fact.  At  various  points  in  the  pages  that 
follow  I have  drawn  attention  to  failings,  and  I believe  that  in  one 
passage  or  another  I have  made  reference  to  all  that  arc  well 
authenticated. 

One  cause  of  embarrassment  has  been  the  necessity  to  refer  to, 
and  even  to  give  character  sketches  of,  living  persons.  In  so  far 
as  their  qualities  affected  Keynes,  they  arc  part  of  his  story.  My 
observations  on  living  people  have  been  made  without  their 
permission ; any  other  course  would  have  made  my*  task  im- 
possible. I would  ask  the  reader  to  remember  that  when  some 
character  walks  across  these  pages,  I have  only  referred  to  qualities 
or  actions  which  in*some  way  influenced  Keynes  ; these  mSiy  have 


PREFACE 


vii 


been  governed  by  the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  incidents  which 
brought  them  into  contact  with  one  another,  and  may  have  been 
quite  uncharacteristic  or  unimportant  in  relation  to  the  life  of  the 
individual  in  question  considered  as  a whole. 

I hope  thaf  I have  not  done  damage  to  any  reputation ! 
Only  in  regard  to  one  case  have  I any  uneasiness.  Bv  a chapter 
of  accidents  a distinguished  American  came  into  sharp  conflict 
with  Keynes  in  the  final  phase  and  played  a part  which  is  bound 
1o  appear  unsympathetic  to  the  reader.  It  would  be  impertinent 
and  beyond  my  competence  to  attempt  an  assessment  of  his 
career  as  a whole  ; I will  only  say  that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge 
he  is  a man  of  most  distinguished  gifts,  who  has  served  his  country 
notably  and  may  yet  render  still  greater  service.  Despite  their 
difference,  Keynes  continued  to  think  well  of  him  and  to  wish 
him  well.  * 

Reference  to  the  living  has  also  involved  me  in  a stylistic 
embarrassment : I have  chosen  to  use  the  past  tense,  on  the 
ground  that  I am  only  concerned  with  the  attributes  of  people  as 
they  were  during  Keynes’  life  and  as  they  affected  him.  Their 
survival,  however  welcome,  is  irrelevant  to  my  story.  Thus  if  the 
reader  finds  the  words  ‘‘  X was  a clever  man  ”,  he  must  not  infer 
either  that  X is  dead  or  that  he  has,  in  my  judgment,  ceased  to  be 
clever ! 

Another  colleague  expressed  astonishment  when  I told  him 
that  I had  written  more  than  a third  of  the  book  and  was  in  fact 
dealing  with  the  year  1919.  “I  should  have  thought  that  that 
would  have  been  your  first  chapter,”  he  replied ; “ no  one  had 
heard  of  Keynes  before  Kjig.”  In  fact  Keynes  did  work  of  no 
little  importance  before  that  year.  I confess,  however,  that  I have 
been  at  pains  to  dwell  at  some  length  on  the  formative  period, 
for  it  is  precisely  here  that  materials  can  be  provided  which  will 
be  inaccessible  to  the  future  historian.  Early  influences  remained 
of  great  importance  throughout  Keynes’  life. 

Many  of  those  who  woiked  with  him  — not  his  intimate 
personal  friends  — have  informed  me  that  they  detected  what 
they  deemed  an  improvement  in  his  character,  a progress  from  a 
sharply  critical  and  intolerant  attitude  to  greater  mellowness. 
No  doubt  there  was  such  a development.  It  is  perhaps  natural 
for  a man  of  great  powers  to  enter  upon  life  with  ardent  enthusiasm 
and  intolerance  of  the  follies  of  his  contemporaries  and  a certain 
measuit  of  arrogance,  and  to  become  in  d&e  course  less  self- 


viii  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

opinionated  and  more  comprehending.  The  first  set  of  attributes 
enables  him  to  make  a place  for  himself  in  the  world,  and  the 
second  to  use  it  wisely.  Yet  the  early  phase  may  be  as  essential  a 
part  of  the  nature  of  the  whole  man  as  the  later,  and  may  be  quite 
as  creditable.  Virtues  are  relative  to  the  environment ; in  one’s 
youth  it  may  be  right  to  be  intransigent  in  the  advocacy  of  one’s 
own  beliefs.  I confess  to  retaining  a certain  affection  for  the  early 
Keynes;  I suppose  that  when  I first  knew  him,  he  may  be 
reckoned  to  have  been  in  the  later  part  of  his  early  phase.  His 
passionate  espousal  of  good  causes,  his  fierce  and  obliterating 
contempts,  his  supreme  confidence  in  the  powers  of  his  own 
reasoning  — I see  all  these  as  splendid  attributes  in  the  young 
knight-errant;  I would  not  have  wished  him  otherwise.  If  we 
are  to  understand  him  as  a whole  — and  this  applies  to  hLs  char- 
acter as  well  as  to  his  economic  doctrines  — we  must  not  view 
him  at  one  point  of  time,  but  as  evolving  throughout  his  life,  not 
replacing  imperfection  by  perfection,  but  adapting  himself  to  the 
successive  functions  he  had  to  fulfil.  I hope  that  the  reader  Will 
feel  that  I have  been  justified  in  dwelling  at  sopie  length  on  the 
earlier  phases. 

In  expressing  my  debts  of  gratitude,  which  are  many  and 
weighty,  it  is  more  than  usually  necessary  to  give  a warning  that 
none  of  those  whom  I shall  mention  as  having  helped  me  arc 
responsible  for  the  interpretation  or  emphasis  that  I have  given. 
In  covering  a vast  field,  partly  undocumented,  I have  had  to 
rely  much  upon  my  own  judgment,  not  only  in  regard  to  Keynes 
himself,  but  also  in  regard  to  those  whose  careers  affected  his.  I 
have  sought  out  the  best  authorities  and  endeavoured  to  follow 
them ; I have  not  at  every  point  been  able  to  do  so.  Intensive 
and  continued  study  of  his  published  work  and  of  his  vast  collec- 
tion of  papers  — he  was  something  of  a hoarder  — has  given 
me  the  sense  that  I do  for  the  moment  know  more  about  his  mind 
than  anyone  else.  In  the  interpretation  of  his  motives  on  a par- 
ticular occasion,  I have  sought  to  bring  to  bear  all  my  collateral 
knowledge,  and  it  has  sometimes  happened  that  I have  felt  com- 
pelled to  prefer  my  judgment  to  that  of  one  who  had  more  direct 
knowledge  of  the  occasion  in  question. 

First  and  foremost,  thanks  must  be  rendered  to  his  mother, 
Mrs.  Keynes,  not  only  for  her  tireless  efforts  to  assist  me  in  my 
labours,  but  also  for  her  lifelong  zeal  in  preserving  letters  and  other 
papers  relating  to  lier  son’s  career.  The  newspaper  cutting^,  which 


PREFACE 


IX 


she  pasted  in,  occupy  34  large  volumes.  She  has  allowed  me  to  see 
the  great  mass  of  letters  written  by  her  son  to  herself  and  to  her 
husband,  the  late  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes.  She  has  been  through  this 
book,  first  in  typescript,  then  in  galley  proof,  and  made  many 
corrections  on  small  points  of  fact  and  helpful  suggestions.  Now 
in  her  ninetieth  year,  she  has  retained  a memory  of  youthful  fresh- 
ness and  a wise  judgment.  In  those  few  cases  where  she  has 
wished  for  a change  of  emphasis,  she  has  always  willingly  left  the 
matter  to  my  final  decision.  It  may  be  surmised  tliat  these  fine 
qualities,  which  have  proved  so  invaluable  to  the  biographer,  also 
played  their  part  in  encouraging  and  helping  her  son  in  his  career, 
which  she  always  followed  with  an  intelligent  interest. 

Lady  Keynes,  Maynard’s  widow,  has  been  kindness  itself. 
She  has  allowed  me  to  use  her  diawing-room  as  my  workshop,  she 
has  given  me  access  to  all  papers,  she  has  helped  me  in  a number 
of  other  material  ways,  and  often  given  me  good  cheer  on  my 
progress  by  w^ords  of  encouragement.  It  should  be  recorded, 
however,  that  I have  not  had  her  assistance  in  the  actual  composi- 
tion of  the  narrative  which  follows ; statements  relating  to  the 
Russian  Ballet,  or  to  the  many  other  matters  of  which  she  had 
cognisance,  do  not  have  the  benefit  of  her  confirmation. 

Mr,  Geoffrey  Keynes  (brother)  has  given  me  access  to  all 
materials  and  helped  in  every  possible  way,  and  he  and  Mrs.  A.  V. 
Hill  (sister)  have  read  through  the  galley  proofs. 

These  have  also  been  read  by  Mr.  R,  F.  Kahn.  He  is  a high 
authority  on  the  development  of  Keynes’  thought  on  economics 
during  the  crucial  period  . It  was  a great  source  of 
comfort  to  me  to  have  my  account  subjected  to  his 
careful  scrutiny,  and  1 am  grateful  for  a number  of  valuable 
suggestions.  It  must  not  be  inferred  that  he  would  endorse  my 
distribution  of  emphasis  in  the  work  as  a whole. 

For  the  sake  of  economy  in  what  has  been  a very  laborious 
task,  1 have,  on  occasions  when  I had  documentary  evidence  or 
first-hand  knowledge,  omitted  to  consult  certain  prime  author- 
ities. In  the  field  of  pure  economic  doctrine  another  principle  has 
also  been  at  work.  Keynes’  views  have  for  many  years  constituted 
an  important  part  of  my  mental  life,  and  I have  discussed  them 
over  arid  over  again  with  many  experts.  I accordingly  judged 
that  the  best  result  would  be  achieved  in  a biography,  which  has 
to  be  very  selective  in  its  treatment  of  pure  theory,  if  I put  on 
pape?  my  mature  views  without  a fresh  rour/d  of  discussion.  It  is 


X JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

proper  therefore  that  I should  supplement  my  record  of  direct 
indebtedness  by  mentioning  certain  high  authorities,  whom  1 
have  not  used  as  sources  in  chief  in  writing  this  Life  (although 
some  of  them  have  helped  me  on  ancillary  matters),  but  with 
whom  I have  had  discussions  in  earlier  years  — for  the  develop- 
ment of  Keynes*  economic  thought  in  the  ’twenties,  Professor 
D.  H.  Robertson,  for  the  'thirties  Mrs.  (Joan)  Robinson, 
Mr.  P.  Sraffa,  Professor  E.  A.  G.  Robinson  and  Professor 
J.  E.  Meade. 

Next  I must  express  my  thanks  to  Mr.  Duncan  Grant  and 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Clive  Bell.  I have  spent  more  than  one  week-end 
in  their  house,  gossiping  about  times  past  and  reviving  old 
memories.  This  was  a part  of  my  work  which  I enjoyed  most. 
They  have  supplied  valuable  information  and  corrected  my 
thoughts  when  they  went  astray.  In  this  connection,  however,  I 
should  mention  that  I have  not  relied  primarily  on  these  visits,  or 
indeed  upon  any  recent  talks  with  Keynes*  “Bloomsbury**  friends, 
for  the  impressions  which  1 have  put  on  paper.  By  good  luck, 
through  certain  Oxford  friends,  and  quite  independently  of  Keynes, 
I was  brought  into  touch  with  a number  of  members  of  the 
“ Bloomsbury  ” circle  when  I was  a young  man  in  the  'twenties. 
They  made  a sharp  and  indelible  impression  on  my  mind.  This 
section  of  my  book  has  something  of  the  character  of  an  auto- 
biography, being  an  attempt  to  give  form  to  the  impressions  which 
1 received  twenty-five  years  ago.  My  account  is  certainly  a 
fragmentary  and  imperfect  one,  but  it  is  first-hand.  I have, 
however,  been  helped  by  having  been  allowed  to  read  the  large 
two-way  correspondence  between  Keynes  and  Mr.  Duncan  Grant 
and  Mrs.  Bell. 

To  Mr.  James  Strachey  I am  grateful  for  permitting  me  to 
see  and  use  letters  which  passed  between  his  brother,  Lytton 
Strachey,  and  Keynes,  and  for  helping  me  in  a number  of 
ways.  Keynes,  Mr,  James  Strachey  and  I agreed  at  least  on  one 
point  — our  profound  admiration  for  Lytton  Strachey.  Posterity 
will  be  able  to  judge  one  side  of  his  genius  from  his  written  works. 
There  was  also  another  side  — a certain  quality,  highly  individual, 
exciting,  strangely  compelling,  yet  elusive,  which  was  manifested 
in  conversation  with  his  friends.  This  quality,  which  created  a 
great  impression  at  the  time,  will  probably  never  be  conveyed  to 
future  generations  — unless  we  have  some  yet  unknown  writer  of 
genius  among  us.  My  own  task  has  been  limited  to  putting'down 


PREFACE 


xi 


to  the  best  of  my  ability  what  seemed  relevant  to  Keynes’  great 
friendship  with  him.  Mr.  James  Strachey  has  helped  me  in  many 
ways,  but  Ls  by  no  means  responsible  for  what  I have  said  about 
his  brother. 

Next  I mu&t  thank  Professor  Lionel  Robbins,  who  has  read 
through  the  last  four  chapters  and  been  good  enough  to  write 
out  many  pages  of  detailed  comments  upon  them  and  to  spend 
many  hours  with  me  discussing  these  matters.  I owe  a great  deal 
to  him.  I must  also  thank  Lord  Brand  and  Mr.  Frank  Lee,  who 
have  read  through  tliese  four  chapters  and  helped  me  with  their 
observations.  I had  the  privilege  of  an  interview  with  Field- 
Marshal  the  Rt.  Hon.  J.  C.  Smuts,  who  has  subsequently  read 
through  Chapters  VII  and  VIII  and  given  me  the  benefit  of  his 
views  upon  them.  Mr.  Richard  Braithwaitc  saw  the  first  version 
ol  my  two  sections  on  Probability  and  saved  me  fiom  a number  of 
mistakes  - - he  may  still  think  that  in)  fin:il  version  contains  some ! 
Mr.  John  Ryan  has  read  through  Chapter  X,  section  2 (on  the 
Gkitton  Industry). 

I must  express  thanks  to  Mr.  J.  R.  Sargent  (Christ  Church), 
who  has  made  laborious  statistical  calculations  for  me  in  connec- 
tion with  the  French  estimates  on  damage  in  the  First  World 
^Var  and  with  Post-War  Credits. 

I am  grateful  to  the  Provost  and  Fellows  of  King’s  College  for 
bearing  with  me  on  frequent  visits  and  for  many  other  kindnesses. 
Perhaps  I should  here  mention  the  greatest  kindness  of  all:  when 
I came  as  a stranger  from  Oxford  in  1922,  Sir  John  Sheppard,  not 
yet  Provost,  and  the  other  Fellows  welcomed  me  and  made  me 
feel  completely  at  home  in  my  new  surroundings.  But  for  the 
quite  unusual  warmth  of  their  hospitality,  I might  have  failed  to 
maintain  my  continuing  connection  with  King’s,  and  this  book 
might  never  have  been  written. 

I am  grateful  to  the  Treasury  for  having  allowed  me  to  inspect 
the  official  records  of  Lord  Keynes’  work  in  the  department,  and 
to  publish  certain  extracts  from  them,  and  for  the  promptness  with 
which  it  has  tended  to  my  needs.  It  has,  however,  no  respon- 
sibility for,  and  would  not  necessarily  endorse,  the  conclusions 
which  I have  drasvn  from  the  study  of  these  papers. 

I am  grateful  also  to  the  Rockefeller  Foundation  for  having 
provided  me  with  a timely  supply  of  dollars,  thus  enabling  me  to 
make  a longer  stay  in  the  United  States  than  would  otherwise 
have  treen  possible.  Had  it  not  been  for  this  generosity  I should 


xii  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

inevitably  have  been  much  less  well  equipped  to  write  the  four 
concluding  chapters  of  this  book. 

Many  others  have  helped  me.  It  would  make  an  excellent 
“ parlour  game  ” to  place  the  names  of  those  I wish  to  thank  in 
their  true  order  of  merit.  Some  have  borne  with  me  through 
several  interviews,  some  have  written  notes  for  my  guidance.  The 
quality  of  the  testimony  given  would  have  to  be  balanced  against 
its  quantity.  I have  included  the  name  of  one  with  whom  I only 
had  talk  for  a few  minutes ; her  evidence  was  so  crisp  and  lucid 
that  it  enabled  me  to  make  up  my  mind  about  a point  on  which 
I had  long  been  in  doubt,  and  on  which  many  witnesses  had  given 
conflicting  testimony.  It  seems  better  to  arrange  the  names  in 
alphabetical  order  and  express  my  heartfelt  thanks  to  the  following: 

Professor  F.  E.  Adcock,  Sir  John  Anderson,  Mrs,  Bagcnal, 
Mr.  T.  Balston,  Mr.  Cyril  Beaumont,  Professor  Sir  J.  1>.  Beazley, 
Lady  Violet  Bonham-Carter,  Mrs.  Harold  Bowen,  Madame 
Bussy,  Mr.  Arthur  Cole,  Messrs.  Angus  and  Douglas  Davidson, 
Mr.  R.  H.  Dundas,  Mr.  O.  T.  Falk,^Mr.  C.  R.  Fay,  Mr.  David 
Garnett,  Miss  Mary  Glasgow,  Mr.  G.  W,  Quillcbaud,  Lord 
Halifax,  Mr.  W,  H.  Haslam,  Professor  R.  G.  Hawtrey,  Professor 
Agnes  Headlam-Morlcy,  Sir  Hubert  and  Lady  Henderson, 
Mr.  Norman  Higgins,  Sir  Arthur  Hobhouse,  Mr.  W.  H.  Hope- 
Jones,  Sir  Richard  Hopkins,  Lord  Layton,  Mr.  S.  G.  I.ubbock, 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Desmond  MacCartby,  Sir  Andrew  MacFadyean, 
Mr.  A.  Mackworth-Young,  the  Revd,  Basil  Maine,  the  late 
Sir  Henry  Marten,  Mr.  Kingsley  Martin,  Mr.  J.  C.  Masterman, 
Professor  H.  O.  Meredith,  Mr.  M.  Montagu-Natlian,  Mr.  A.  N.  L. 
Munby,  Sir  Otto  Niemeyer,  Mr,  W.  M.  Page,  Mr.  Alwyn  Parker, 
Lord  Perth,  Professor  A.  G.  Pigou,  Dr.  J.  Plesch,  Professor  D.  H. 
Robertson,  Professor  E.  A.  G.  Robinson,  Mr.  A.  Rose,  Mr.  G. 
Rylands,  Mr,  F,  C.  Scott,  Sir  J,  T.  Sheppard,  Mr,  S,  Sidney- 
Tumer,  Field-Marshal  J.  G,  Smuts,  Professor  W,  J.  H.  Sprott, 
Mr.  R.  Stone,  the  Misses  Marjorie,  Pernel  and  Philippa  Strachey, 
Mr.  B.  W.  Swithinbank,  Mr.  G.  M.  Trevelyan,  Mr.  R.  Trouton, 
Sir  David  Waley,  Mr.  Dudley  Ward,  Professor  Geoffrey  Webb, 
Sir  Charles  Webster,  Mr.  G.  Winthrop  Young,  Mr.  Leonard 
Woolf.  And  on  the  American  side : Professor  J.  W.  Angcll, 
Mr.  A.  Berlc,  jun.,  Mr.  E.  M.  Bernstein,  Mr.  W.  Chatfield- 
Taylor,  Mr.  W.  L.  Clayton,  Mr.  Frank  Coe,  Mr.  Ben  Cohen, 
Mr.  E.  G.  Colladt),  Mr.  Oscar  Cox,  Mr.  Lauchlin  Currie, 
Mr.  Marriuer  Eccles,  Mr.  Herbert  Feiss,  Justice  F.  Frankfiirter, 


PREFACE  xiii 

Mr.  W.  Gardner,  Mr.  E.  A.  Goldcnweiser,  M.  Camille  Gutt, 
Professor  Alvin  Hansen,  Professor  S.  E.  Harris,  Mr.  H.  Hawkins, 
Mr.  Qjientin  Keynes  (nephew),  Mr.  R.  C.  Leffingwell,  Mr.  A.  F. 
Luxford,  Mr.  A.  Maffry,  Profe.ssor  D.  McCord  Wright,  Mr.  Henry 
Morgenthau,  ^Ir.  Norman  Ness,  Mr.  R.  Opie  (who  has  to  be 
reckoned  on  this  side  now),  Mr.  L.  Pasvolsky,  Mrs.  F.  D.  Roose- 
velt, Mr.  A.  Sachs,  Mr.  W.  S.  Salant,  Mr.  Walter  Stewart,  Professor 
J.  Viner,  Chief  Justice  F.  M.  Vinson,  Professor  J.  H.  Williams, 
and  Mr.  J.  H.  Willits. 

These  are  my  living  authorities.  My  documentation  has 
mainly  consisted  of  Keynes’  own  papers.  I will  forbear  to  mention 
the  large  mass  of  literature  which  I have  consulted,  with  one 
exception,  namely,  the  admirable  books  on  the  Russian  Ballet  by 
Mr.  Cyril  Beaumont. 

I am  grateful  to  Mr.  Geoffrey  Winthrop  \oung  for  having 
written  out  for  me  and  allowed  me  to  use  a description  of  Keynes 
when  he  was  a boy  at  Eton  (Ch.  i,  3),  to  Mr.  E.  A.  G.  Robinson 
f(jr  two  extracts  from  his  obituary  notice  of  Keynes  in  the  Economic 
Journal  (Ch.  iv,  i and  Ch.  xi,  i),  to  Colonel  Terence  Maxwell  for 
having  allowed  me  to  publish  letters  by  the  late  Mr.  Austen 
Chamberlain  (Ch.  iv,  3 and  Ch.  vi,  3),  to  Mrs.  Brooksbaiik  for 
having  allowed  me  to  inspect  the  diary  of  her  brother.  Sir  Basil 
Blackett,  and  to  publish  certain  extracts  from  it  (Ch.  vi,  i),  to  Sir 
Frederick  Kenyon  (for  the  British  Academy),  Sir  Richard  Hopkins 
and  Sir  Otto  Niemeyer  for  having  allowed  me  to  publish  extracts 
from  the  obituary  notice  in  the  Pioceeding^  of  the  British  Academy 
(Ch.  vi,  1),  to  Ml.  Alwyn  Parker  for  his  account  of  a character 
sketch  of  Keynes  by  thi*  late  Sir  Eyre  Crowe  (Ch.  vi,  3),  to  Mrs. 
Allyn  Young  for  having  dug  out  an  important  letter  from  Keynes 
to  her  late  husband  (Ch.  viii,  i),  to  the  Provost  of  King’s  and 
Mr.  Hugh  Durnford  for  the  extract  from  the  King’s  College 
brochure  on  Keynes  (Ch.  x,  3),  to  Mr.  Walter  Lippmann  for 
allowing.me  to  publish  a letter  by  him  (Ch.  xi,  i)  and  to  Professor 
Lionel  Robbins  for  having  allowed  me  to  publish  extracts  from 
his  Journal  (Ch,  xiii.  4), 

I am  grateful  to  Mr.  E.  M.  Bernstein  for  having  given  me 
access  to  the  files  of  the  International  Monetary  Fund,  and 
allowed,  me  to  spend  some  days  working  there ; to  Mr.  Kingsley 
Martin  for  having  allowed  me  to  work  for  several  days  at  a desk 
in  the  offices  of  the  New  Statesman ; to  Sir  Philip  Hendy  for  having 
suppMcd  me  with  a list  of  the  works  purcha-ed  at  the  Degas  sale 


xiv  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

(1917) ; to  Mr.  Geoffrey  Crowther  for  letting  me  inspect  the 
Minute  Book  of  the  Tuesday  Club ; and  to  Mr.  Ralph  Partridge 
for  the  photograph  of  Lytton  Strachey. 

Mr.  Dundas,  Keynes’  old  friend  of  Eton  days,  came  into 
service  and  applied  his  meticulous  scrutiny  to  my  galley  proofs. 
I am  grateful  also  to  Mi.  H.  Dobell,  who  volunteered  to  place  his 
exceptional  gifts  at  my  disposal  at  the  page-proof  stage.  Mrs. 
Stephens,  who  w as  Keynes’  secretary  for  twelve  years,  spent  more 
than  a year  on  the  heroic  task  of  getting  his  papers  into  order 
before  I appeared  on  the  scene.  She  also  typed  the  book,  kept 
track  of  the  numerous  successive  coircctions  in  the  various  copies 
and  performed  the  same  service  at  the  galley-proof  stage.  I am 
grateful  to  my  wife  for  her  continuing  encouragement  and  for 
taking  the  hardest  share  in  constructing  the  index. 

R.  F.  HARROD 

tllRISI  LhURCII,  OxiORD 


CONrtNIS 

(IIAIIFR  lAtL 

I HoMr  AND  Eion  I 

11  UnDLRORADI  ATE  \T  CaMBRIDOI 

111  In  Quest  oi  a Wa\  ot  Lin  104 

I\  Triiow  OI*  Kings  14.2 

\ Bloomsbl  r\  1^2 

VI  1 tiRST  WoRl  D \\  \K  AND  DU  IHrIS  P'  \(  I 

C >NFFR1  NCI  H), 

\ II  Ihe  Lconomig  CoNsruiPN(is  01  ini  Pfaci  254 

\ III  Rj  CONSIRI  C TION  2H  ) 

>X  Return  to  nii  Gold  Standard  ,51 

\ A luiAiisi  ON  Momy  571 

\1  fui  GeMRAI  IhIORV  oi-  iMIIOTMfNF,  JmIRISI 

\ND  Money  ’ 4 >2 

XI 1 Into  iiu  Sicond  Worid  War  187 

XIII  Bretton  Woods  32^3 

XI\  Ihi  us  Loan  ro  Britain  58^ 

XV  lur  Lasi  Phasi  624 

Appendix  Non  m Irfmisi  on  iRonABiniv  ’ by 
Indfx  (>j7 


XV 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


]()iiN  Ma\n\rj)  Kl\ms  hiontzspuu 

1 \C  INI  PAG! 


} LORI  Nt  1 Ada  Ki  \ nps  12 

John  Nimlii  Kiynis 
Mwnard,  \gld  > 

Ma\nard,  Aged  12 

Sir  Harold  Builir  am>  J \I  K^Y^Is  in 

" 1 HI  RiVAIs’’  )) 

1 Y 1 rON  S 1 RAC  HLV  Hq 

Dunc  VN  (trani  and  M\ynard  Kl\ms  r ’o 

L\di\  Lopokova 

P\Gl  ON  Dlm  ARILS  TROM  Kl  YM  s’  jSlOTl -ROOK  J 

Mr  Hi  nry  Morc^i  n iuac  and  J \1  Kiynfs  \i 

Bri  11  on  Woods  1d8 


XVI 


CHAPTER  I 


HOME  AND  ETON 

1 

JOHN  MAYNARD  KFYNEb  * was  bojn  OH  f)th  June  1883,  at 
6 Harvey  Road,  a solid,  roomy  Vic  torian  house  in  a quiet  Cam  - 
bridge  street.  His  parents,  who  survived  him,^  continued  to  live 
there  throughout  his  sixty-three  )eais.  During  all  his  active  and, 
at  times,  tenipestuous  caieer  in  the  realms  ol  thought  and  piactical 
iiffairs,  he  was  able  to  return  to  this  house,  lull  of  fond  memories, 
and  to  his  parents,  \\hom  he  lo\cd.  They  were  loving  parents; 
they  also  had  qualities  of  intellectual  cmincme  and  pcisonal  dis- 
tinction, so  that,  gieat  man  as  he  was,  he  did  not  outgrow  them. 
His  roots  were  deep  in  6 Haivey  Road,  which  embodied  the  stable 
values  of  the  civilisation  in  whicli  he  was  bred. 

In  1883  his  father,  John  Neville  Keynes,  was  a young  CJam- 
biidgc  don  of  rising  leputation  as  a lecturer  in  logic  and  political 
economy  and  as  an  administi  ator.  Life  w<is  full  of  pleasant 
activity  and  of  the  promise  of  good  things  to  come.  His  gifted 
wife,  Florence  Ada,  was  destined  to  make  hei  own  mark  in  local 
afiaiis  and  with  her  pen,  and  had  tact  and  sagacity  which  enabled 
her  to  be  an  unfailing  suppoit  to  her  son.  On  4th  February 
1885  Margaret  was  born,  and  on  25th  Maich  1887,  Geoffrey. 
Here  was  a happy,  late-Victorian  family,  living  in  moderate 
circumstances  but  solid  comfort,  the  house  well  staffed  with 
domestic  servants,  the  passing  days  full  of  activity  and  the  future 
secure. 

In  Cambridge,  the  pulse  of  life  beat  stionglv.  Ihe  home  of 
ancient  traditions,  which  still  flourished,  it  was  a piogressive 
place  ; its  pre-eminence  in  the  natural  sciences  ensuied  that.  The 
social  sciences  also  were  gaining  recognition.  University  reforms 
were  und«r  wav.  There  was  the  prob^m  of  the  relation  of  the 
University  to  the  Colleges.  The  piovision  of  le(tures  had  been 


1 


B 


2 JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1S83 

reorganised,  the  curricula  revised.  Cambridge  was  throwing  out 
tentacles  over  the  country  through  her  system  of  extension 
lectures  and  external  examinations;  John  Neville  Keynes  was 
at  this  time  assistant  secretary  to  the  “ Syndicate  for  local  examina- 
tions and  lectures  There  was  the  unfolding  drama  of  the 
advent  of  women  to  Cambridge  and  their  admission  to  lectures, 
examinations  and  other  privileges.  Henry  Sidgwick  had  been 
the  hero  in  that  story ; he  was  also  the  hero  of  the  Keynes 
family.  He  seemed  to  embody  many  of  the  virtues  of  the  great 
Victorian  age.  His  resignation  of  his  Fellowship  at  Trinity  on 
grounds  of  religious  doubt  had  been  an  important  landmark  in 
the  struggle  for  the  abolition  of  religious  tests  at  the  University. 
His  combination  of  eminence  as  a philosopher,  personal  integrity, 
free  thinking,  and  tireless  attention  to  the  small  details  of  Univer- 
sity reform,  made  him  a ty]>i(  al  Victorian  of  the  time  ; and  how 
should  he  not  be  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  Keyneses,  since  Mrs. 
Keynes  had  been  one  of  the  early  pupils  at  Newnham,  whose 
inception  owed  so  much  to  him  ? Their  attitude  towards  him. was 
almost  one  of  veneration.  We  shall  see  that  Maynard,  in  his 
adult  years,  came  to  hold  «i  somewhat  different  view  — a change 
typical  of  the  transition  fiom  the  late  Victorian  ou^ook  to  that 
of  the  twentieth  ( entury. 

If  Cambridge  combined  a deep-rooted  traditionalism  with  a 
lively  progrcssivencss,  so  too  did  England.  She  was  in  the  strongly 
upward  trend  of  her  material  development ; her  overseas  trade 
and  in\cstmcnt  were  still  expanding ; the  great  pioneers  of  social 
reform  weic  already  making  headway  in  educating  public  opinion. 
On  the  basis  of  her  hardly  won,  but  now  solidly  established, 
prosperity,  the  ])osition  of  the  British  Empire  seemed  unshakable. 
Reforms  would  be  within  a fiamework  of  stable  and  unquestioned 
social  values.  There  was  ample  clbow-ioom  for  experiment 
without  danger  that  the  main  fabric  of  our  economic  well-being 
would  be  destroyed.  It  is  true  that  only  a minority  enjoyed  the 
full  fruits  of  this  well-being  ; but  the  consciences  of  the  leaders  of 
thought  were  not  unmindful  of  the  hardships  of  the  poor.  There 
was  great  confidence  that,  in  due  course,  by  careful  management, 
their  condition  would  be  improved  out  of  recognition.  The 
stream  of  progress  would  not  cease  to  flow.  While  the  reformers 
were  most  earnestly  bent  on  their  purposes,  they  held  that  there 
were  certain  strict  rules  and  conventions  which  must  not  be 
violated;  secure  and  stable  though  the  position  seemed,  there 


AFT  O] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


3 


was  a strong  sense  that  danger  beset  any  changes.  In  the  period 
that  followed,  some  of  the  rules  came  to  seem  absurd  and  the  fears 
and  hesitations  groundless.  The  life  of  Keynes  lies  athwart  these 
two  periods  ; in  his  own  thoughts  he  passed  through  the  transition, 
and,  indeed,  he  (jontributed  much  to  it.  Those  who  live  half  a 
century  later,  in  a period  when  the  tempo  of  progress  has  increased 
but  the  world  is  fbll  of  perih,  may  wonder  whether  all  the  old 
conventions  were  in  fact  completely  foolish  and  the  hesitations 
groundless.  Have  we  yet  devised  good  new  rules  to  replace  the 
old  rules  ? This  is  a problem  on  which  study  of  the  development 
of  Keynes’  thought  should  throw  light. 

Cambridge  was  an  important  constituent  of  England.  She 
trained  a large  proportion  of  those  destined  to  guide  public 
opinion  and  to  execute  policy.  There  were  personal  links  between 
the  University  and  those  high  in  public  affairs ; Mrs.  Henry 
Sidgwick  was  herself  the  sister  of  Mr.  Balfoui,  \sho  became 
Prime  Minister.  Thus  Cambridge,  where  Keynes  spent  his 
chiyiiood,  was  an  active,  purposeful  place.  \Vith  her  strong 
traditionalism,  her  security,  her  earnestness,  she  was  an  epitome 
of  England,  Reform,  in  the  larger,  as  in  the  smaller,  sphere,  was 
to  be  achieved  primarily  and  piincipally  by  the  discussion  of 
intelligent  people.  In  all  vital  matters  their  view  would  prevail. 
Public  opinion  would  be  wisely  guided,  'llie  existing  stability, 
the  need  none  the  less  for  caution  in  advance,  and  the  certainty 
that  advances  on  a cumulative  scale  w^ould  be  achieved,  were 
taken  for  granted.  They  were  the  presuppositions  of  life,  and 
the  justification  ali^  ' of  one’s  work  and  one’s  leisure.  Pleasures 
could  be  sipped  with  a clear  conscience.  Were  not  all  good  men 
day  by  day  ensuring  through  their  efforts  that  in  due  course 
those  pleasures  would  be  widely  diffu’^ed  and  multiplied  ? 

If  I achieve  niy  purpose,  the  life-work  of  Keynes  will  be  seen, 
in  part,  as  an  expression  of  this  Cambridge  civilisation,  both  in 
its  stability  and  self-confidcnce  and  in  its  progressiveness.  Will 
that  life-work  in  due  course  have  Ui  be  regarded  as  a splendid 
afterglow  of  a civilisation  fast  disappearing,  or  may  it  perhaps 
be  a link  between  one  phase  A British  civilisation  and  the  next, 
stretching  across  a period  of  confusion  and  uncertainty  ? 

Keynes’  make-up  would  qualify  him  to  be  such  a link.  His 
mind  was  keenly  receptive,  and  the  events  through  which  he  lived 
made  sharp  and  immediate  impressions  upon  it.  He  became 
aware  of  changes  in  contemporary  thought  ^^nd  contemporary 


4 JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1883 

practice  as  soon  as  they  occurred.  That  was  why,  to  those  who 
had  met  him  two  or  three  times  only,  or  had  dipped  into  his 
writing  without  deep  study,  he  presented  a chameleon-like  appear- 
ance. It  was  the  chop  and  change  of  our  age  which  they  saw 
reflected  in  him,  before  they  had  had  the  wit^lo  appreciate  its 
significance  themselves.  But  beneath  this  appearance  of  variability 
was  a continuity  of  thought  and  purpose,  which  may  be  traced 
back  to  early  influences.  He  continued  to  value  those  elements  in 
our  civilisation  which  he  had  been  brought  up  to  value  as  a boy. 
Just  because  he  was  so  quickly  aware  of  new  forces  which  might 
serve  to  disrupt  this  civilisation,  he  felt  how  urgently  needful  it 
was  for  us  to  adapt  ourselves  without  delay  to  the  changes  proceed- 
ing, If  time  were  wasted,  much  might  be  lost  beyond  recovery. 
His  mind  was  constantly  seeking  new  methods  of  accommodation, 
new  recipes. 

The  First  World  War  did  much  to  undermine  the  stable  and 
secure  conditions  of  the  British  Empire  and  the  presuppositions 
of  6 Harvey  Road.  As  time  went  on,  Keynes  had  to  rely  njore 
and  more  on  his  own  resources  in  devising  policies  he  could 
support.  On  the  one  side  were  those  of  conservative  temperament 
who  did  not  understand  the  extent  to  which  adaptation  was  neces- 
sary if  old  values  were  to  be  preserved  in  the  new  environment. 
On  the  other  side  weie  those  who  had  little  regard  for  the  old 
values.  To  many  of  the  i'ormer,  Keynes  may  have  seemed  a 
mischievous  radical ; many  of  the  latter,  while  welcoming  him 
for  his  modernity,  I'ailed,  to  a large  extent,  to  understand  the 
purport  of  his  message,  lacking  his  presuppositions.  Not  all 
Englishmen  fell  into  these  two  categories ; he  had  many  followers, 
who  understood  fairly  well  what  he  was  about ; his  legacy  re- 
mains with  us.  In  what  follows,  some  attempt  will  be  made  to 
interpret  it. 

Meanwhile,  across  the  waters,  there  was  a civilisation  in  which 
the  old  self-confidence  remained  and  was  nourished  .by  its  own 
successes  and  growth  of  powci.  The  American  cix'ilisation  is 
widely  dift'erent  from  that  of  Harvey  Road.  On  the  material 
side  one  may  perhaps  put  down  the  combination  of  modest, 
unostentatious  living  with  ample  domestic  service  and  domestic 
comforts  as  the  basis  of  cultured  life  of  the  old  British  type. 
Intellectual  Cambridge  may  have  had  its  counterpart  in  the 
United  States ; but  it  cannot  be  deemed  to  have  resembled  the 
more  usual  American  pattern.  Keynes  w^as  not  predisposed  to 


AET.  O] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


5 


admire  the  American  way  of  life.  Later  influences,  strongly  and 
typically  British,  coming  from  his  circle  of  Bloomsbury  friends, 
made  him  still  less  predisposed  to  take  a kindly  view  of  American 
civilisation.  And  yet  it  was  destined  to  happen  that,  when  he 
crossed  the  Atlantic  repeatedly,  amid  the  grim  and  terrible 
circumstances  of  the  Second  World  War,  to  discuss  affairs  of  the 
utmost  gravity,  he  found  something  that  he  had  long  missed  in 
Britain.  He  found  there  men  who  had  retained  their  intellectual 
poise,  men  of  strong  conviction,  men  who  had  their  settled  pre- 
suppositions, which,  albeit  not  the  same  as  those  of  Harvey  Road, 
were  first  cousins  to  them,  men  who  believed  that  by  rational 
discussion  one  could  plan  and  achieve  reform  and  carry  forward 
the  progress  of  mankind. 

Britain  had,  in  the  interval,  become  somewhat  scatter-brained  ; 
events  had  'moved  too  quickly  for  her,  and  ino^t  of  her  leading 
men  had  lost  their  grip.  The  continued  security  and  prosperity 
of  America  had  sustained  that  purposefulness,  that  self-confidence 
and  that  faith  that  the  reasonable  <^olutiou  can  be  made  to  prevail 
which  were  the  characteristics  of  late  Victorian  England,  and 
which,  because  of  Maynard  Keynes’  terrific  innate  mental  vigour, 
had,  despite  all  the  storms,  remained  characteristic  of  him.  And 
so  it  happened  that  he  came  at  long  last  to  «ipprcciatc  that  the 
United  States  was  also  a great  civilisation.  (Hose  co-operation 
was  possible,  almost  easy. 

Will  these  two  nations  continue  in  a joint  endeavour  for  pro- 
gress and  reform  on  a world-wide  scale  ? Did  Keynes  reach  a 
point  of  view  in  this  matter,  as  in  so  many  others,  in  which  his 
fellow-countrymen  will  follow  him?  Will  the  positive  achieve- 
ments of  Bretton  Woods  endure  and  proliferate?  Or  will  the 
heroic  efforts  of  his  last  days  prove  vain  ? 

When  at  Eton,  Keynes,  perhaps  spurred  by  emulation  of  his 
distinguished  compeers,  devoted  some  lime  to  tracing  his  family 
ancestry.  There  is  a tree  drawn  ou^^  in  his  hand,  which  is  headed 
“William  dc  Keynes,  1066”.  A good  beginning!  One  may 
conjure  up  the  image  of  a lol.^  line  of  Keyneses  who,  behind  the 
scenes  on  which  puppet  Plantagenels  and  Tudors  played  their 
parts,  were  in  effect  ruling  the  country  all  the  while  1 At  106G 
the  correct  spelling  was  (^ahagnes,  a place  in  Vire,  Normandy. 
The  modern  spelling,  Keynes,  first  occurs  in  1300,  and  Kaynes  in 
tile  reign  of  King  John.  They  did  not  rule  the  country ! But 
they  were  for  several  centuries  persons  of  considerable  substance, 


6 JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  L1884 

and  may  be  traced  in  local  names,  such  as  Horsled-Keyncs  and 
Milton-Keynes.  One  line  had  estates  in  Sussex  which  included 
Tilton,  of  which  Maynard  obtained  a life  tenancy  in  order  to 
make  it  his  country  home,  without  previously  knowing  of  its 
connection  with  the  family.*  The  Keyneses  showed  their  pro- 
clivity to  intellectual  independence  by  remaining  Catholics  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  and  thereby  they  lost 
much  of  their  position.^  Maynard’s  grandfather  lived  at  Salis- 
bury, first  as  a manufacturer  and  then  as  a nurseryman.  He 
prospered  considerably,  and  bred  and  exhibited  many  new 
varieties  of  flowers.  He  married,  as  his  second  wife,  Anna  Neville 
of  the  Essex  family  of  that  name,  and  of  that  marriage  John 
Neville,  born  in  1853,  was  the  only  child. 

John  Neville  was  educated  at  Amersham  Hall  School  and 
University  College,  I.ondon,  and  having  obtained  a scholarship 
ill  mathematics  at  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge,  was  “ Senior 
Moralist  in  1875  and  was  awarded  a Fellowship  at  Pembroke  in 
1876.”*  Six  years  later  he  married  Florence  Brown,  one  of  the  oarly 
Newnham  students.  She  was  a daughter  of  a well-known  Con- 
gregation alist  divine,  John  Brown,  who  was  the  minister  for  thirty 
years  of  Bunyan’s  chapel  at  Bedford,  the  author  of  an  authoritative 
life  of  Bunyan  and  of  other  works  on  the  history  of  puritanism, 
and  received  a doctorate  from  the  University  of  Yale.  One  of 
his  sons,  Sir  Walter  Langdon-Brown,  became  Regius  Professor 
of  Physic  ill  (’ambridge.  Maynard  claimed  to  be  the  first  son 
of  the  marriage  oi'  a Cambridge  Fellow  with  a member  of 
Newnham. 

Seven  months  after  the  happy  event  of  Maynard’s  birth, 
Neville  Keynes  published  the  first  edition  of  his  book  on  Formal 
Logic.  This  underwent  successive  revisions  until  the  edition  of 
1906.  It  is  a notable  work:  thorough,  lucid  and  authoritative, 
and  may  well  attain  a permanent  place  in  the  history  of  thought. 
It  is  an  exposition  of  the  system  ol'  deductive  logic,  of  which 
Aristotle  was  the  inventor  and  which  for  some  twenty-two 

* I’hc  sanu*  ancestor  who  owned  property  at  Tilton  also  acquit  erl  property  in 

the  parish  of  Barton,  of  which  King's  was  tithe-owner.  Maynard,  as  bursar,  took  an 
active  interest  in  this  church,  while  probably  unconscious  of  its  connection  with  his 
family.  .• 

* For  a full  account  of  the  Keynes  pedigree  and  also  of  Maynard’s  ancestors  on 
Ills  mother’s  side,  see  Gathering  up  the  Threads,  by  F.  A.  Keynes.  Publ.  Heffer  & Sons, 
I95«* 

3 He  was  .also  awardrd  a Fellov’ship  at  UniNersily  ( lollege,  London,  whil’h  he  held 
for  life  without  stipend. 


AET.  O] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


7 


centuries  has  constituted  the  main  part  of  what  teachers  and 
scholars  have  understood  by  logic.  It  carried  a stage  further 
the  work  of  the  nineteenth-century  masters — Mill,  De  Morgan, 
Jevons  and  Venn.  It  appeared  on  tlie  eve  of  that  great  dis- 
placement which  has  been  caused  by  the  rapid  and  spectacular 
development  of  “ mathematical  logic  The  practitioners  of 
this  new  branch  claim  that  old  deductive  logic  is  now  dead  and 
buried. 

A final  verdict  c annot  yet  be  given.  Maynard,  who  promoted 
or  was  associated  with  so  many  great  changes  of  thought  and 
practice  in  his  time,  was  also  a dose  and  interested  spectator  of 
this  more  recondite  but  very  fundamental  change  in  our  theory 
of  the  principles  of  human  thought.  The  condition  of  logical 
studies  has  not  yet  reached  a new  equilibrium.  Few  now  doubt 
that  the  mathematical  logicians  have  achieved  a mighty  synthesis, 
which  will  not  be  challenged  in  essentials  and  has  far-reaching 
implications.  But  the  new  system,  imprisoned,  as  in  a manner 
it  is,  in  its  own  symbolism,  fails  to  answer  satisfactorily  many 
philosophical  problems  about  deductive  thought.  Neville  Keynes' 
book  has  a sure  plac  e as  the  most  complete  and  polished  exposition 
of  the  old  system.  It  is  still  commonly  used  as  a text-book  in 
Cambridge,  and  still  often  recommended,  when  teachers  in  the 
sister  university  overcome  their  insularity,  for  reading  in  Oxford. 
It  is  likely  that,  when  the  study  of  thought  as  such  recovers  its 
wind  after  the  foi^midable  impact  of  the  symbolists,  many  of  the 
lines  of  enquiry  w ‘ich  we  find  in  Neville  Keynes’  treatise  will 
Ire  taken  up  again  for  further  development. 

One  erf  the  closest  friencs  of  the  family  was  the  logician  W.  E. 
Johnson.  By  cermparison  vith  the  grac  iousn(‘ss  and  warmth  of 
John  Neville,  Johnson  appeared  to  many  to  Ire  rather  a dry  stick. 
But  he  had  his  charm  for  those  who  knew  him  well ; G.  K 
Chesterton  was  a great  friend,  and,  when  he  came  on  one  of  his 
periodic  visits,  there  was  no  lack  of  fun  in  the  Johnson  home. 
To  the  notice  by  Professor  Broad  in  the  P)oceedings  of  the  British 
Academy^  Maynard  contributed  a description  : 

He  used,  when  I was  a child,  regularly  to  lunch  at  Harvey  Road 
with  my  father,  I should  think  almost  once  a week.  My  father  was 
then  writing  a book  on  logic  [strictly,  th^s  should  be,  revising  his 
book],  which  would  frequently  be  a matter  of  discussion.  They 
seemed  to  me  in  those  days  to  sit  endlessly  <jver  the  meal,  and  I 
woulfl  be  in  a fidget  to  be  allowed  to  get  up  anti  go.  His  voice  and 


8 JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1884 

manner  were  quite  unclianged  in  my  memory  from  those  days, 

more  than  forty  years  ago,  up  to  the  end  of  his  life. 

Maynard  remembered  his  fidgets  as  a little  boy;  but  it  is 
recalled  that  when  he  was  no  longer  quite  such  a little  boy  he 
used  to  join  in  the  argument  between  his  father  and  Johnson. 
Unhappily,  we  do  not  know  what  precisely  the  arguments  were 
about  or  which  side  Maynard  took.  A profound  student  of 
thought  might  be  able,  by  the  diligent  study  of  the  logical  writings 
of  Keynes  father,  Keynes  son  and  Johnson,  to  elucidate  this  matter, 
and  thereby  perhaps  to  explain  characteristic  tendencies  (even 
perversities !)  in  the  economic  writings  of  Maynard,  for  this 
precocious  initiation  into  debate  on  the  higher  mysteries  of  logic 
would  surely  implant  a lasting  intellectual  bias. 

Maynard  retained  a great  regard  for  Johnson.  When  I asked 
him  in  1922  how  much  mathematics  it  was  needful  for  an  econo- 
mist to  know,  he  replied  that  Johnson,  in  his  article  in  the 
Economic  Journal,^  had  carried  the  application  of  mathematical 
analysis  to  economic  theory  about  as  far  as  it  was  likely  to^be 
useful  to  carry  it.^ 

Meanwhile,  in  the  years  immediately  following  1883  even 
Maynard  could  not  be  expected  to  know  anything  of  logic  or 
mathematical  economics.  His  father  kept  a diary  which  preserves 
for  us  contemporary  notes  about  the  progress  of  the  infant. 
Readers  of  The  Geneial  Theory  of  Employment^  Interest  and  Money 
may  like  to  know  that  in  1888,  at  the  age  of  four  and  a half, 
Maynard,  on  beijig  asked  what  is  meant  by  interest,  said,  “ If  1 
let  you  have  a halfpenny  and  you  kept  it  for  a very  long  time,  you 
would  have  to  give  me  back  that  halfpenny  and  another  too. 
That’s  interest.”  In  April  1890  (age  six)  there  is  an  entry  about 
the  future  logician : “ Maynard  much  interested  in  his  brain. 
‘Just  now,’  he  says,  ‘ it  is  wondering  how  it  thinks.  It  ought  to 
know.’  ” In  March  1891  (age  seven)  wt  find  the  entry,  “ Ilis 
father  having  remarked  that  he  was  not  behaving  so  well  at 
lunch  as  he  had  done  the  day  before  when  Dr.  James  Ward 
came  to  lunch,  ‘ That,’  he  said,  ‘ was  by  a great  effort.  I 

* December  1913  : The  Pure  Theory  of  Utility  Curves. 

* He  had  evidently  written  the  matter  olf  in  his  mind  thus.  Mathematical 
economists  of  the  younger  school  may  have  felt  in  more  recent  years  thit  he  did  not 
sufficiently  appreciate  the  value  of  their  original  work.  His  dictum  about  Johnson’s 
contribution  was  clearly  not  meant  to  have  finality.  It  may  have  been  a shrewd 
assessment  of  what  was  likely  to  be  useful  to  himself  in  his  own  economic  explorations 
within  his  own  span  of  lil'e. 


AET.  I-7l 


HOME  AND  ETON 


9 


had  been  preparing  for  it  for  days.  I cannot  always  make  so 
great  an  effort ! ’ ” There  is  a delightfully  happy  feeling  in  the 
diary.  His  lather  remarks  that  he  is  a “thoroughly  interesting 
companion 

Meanwhile,  John  Neville  was  going  from  strength  to  strength. 
He  was  an  economist  as  well  as  a logician.  In  the  year  of  May- 
nard's birth,  Alfred  Marshall  writes,  “ I am  delighted  indeed 
to  sec  that  you  arc  examiner  at  London  (a  permanent  ap- 
pointmeiil).  “ If  I had  to  select  the  man  out  of  all  England 
whom  I should  have  liked  best  to  have  there,  I should  have  chosen 
you.” 

Marshall’s  regard  for  Keynes  as  an  economist  is  further 
testified  by  a voluminous  correspondence,  in  which  Marshall 
consulted  him,  as  one  whose  verdh  I would  have  great  weight,  on 
various  poiiits  in  economics,  which  had  to  be  settled  for  his 
forthcoming  maginmi  opus^  The  Ptinciple^  of  pAonomics,  Keynes 
was  in  correspondence  also  with  most  of  the  leading  economists 
of#the  day.  llicre  was  some  idea  that  he  might  become  Professor 
of  Political  Economy  in  Oxford,  and  a letter  from  Professor 
Fox  well  (15th  January  1888)  is  worth  quoting  : 

1 sliould  regret  it  for  many  reasons,  though  I expect  it  would  be 
the  best  thing  for  Oxford.  . . . 

Pray  don’t  go.  I(  is  inuclj  l>etler  that  a study  should  be  con- 
centrated in  a particular  place.  'I’herc  arise  many  of  the  same 
advantages  as  in  tlie  localisation  of  an  industry.  Your  depart- 
ure would  Jca\<.  a nasty  lagged  wound  in  our  Moral  Sciences 
Organisation. 

What  is  the  use  of  1k*1  g a settled  family  man  if  you  arc  to  drift 
from  your  moorings  in  thi  fashion  ^ Think  of  the  eifect  your  move 
may  have  on  \our  son.  lie  may  gnw  up  flippantly  epigrarnmatical 
and  end  by  becoming  ilic  proprietor  of  a Guttei  Gazette,  or  the 
hero  of  a popular  party;  instead  of  emulating  his  fatlier’s  noble 
example,  becoming  an  accuraic,  clear-headed  Cambridge  man, 
spending  a life  in  the  valuable  and  unpretentious  service  of  his  kind, 
dying  beloved  of  his  frienc. venerated  by  the  wise  and  unknown 
to  the  masses,  as  true  merit  and  worth  mostly  are. 

John  Neville  stayed  at  Cambridge.  Maynard’s  career  did 
not  exactly  correspond  to  J'oxwelPs  prescription,  but,  for  all  the 
epigrams  and  even  flippancies  that  he  subsequently  perpetrated, 
he  was,  at  the  centre  of  his  being,  “ an  accurate  and  clear-headed 
Cambridge  man  ”.  It  was  the  combinatiofl  of  the  solid  worth 


lo  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1892 

with  the  epigrammatic  brilliance  that  enabled  him  to  render  his 
unique  service  lo  mankind.  Would  Oxford  indeed  have  caused 
him  to  cultivate  his  taste  for  epigrams  over-much  ? 

In  1890  the  British  Economic  Association  was  founded,  with 
John  Neville  as  an  original  member  of  the  Council,  and  in  March 
1891  the  first  issue  of  the  Economic  Journal  appeared,  under  the 
editorship  of  F.  Y.  Edgeworth.  Maynard  was  destined  to  become 
its  editor  for  a period  of  no  less  than  thirty-three  years.  It  is 
interesting  to  know  that  his  father  was  strongly  pressed  by  Alfred 
Marshall  and  others  to  become  tiic  first  editor.  “ I promise 
not  to  worry  you  any  more  about  editorship  of  the  Economic 
Journal.  . . . Foxwell  asked  whether  there  was  any  use  in  putting 
pressure  on  you  for  the  last  time.  Everyone  would  vety  much  prefer 
you.”  * 

In  1890  appeared  the  first  edition  of  Ihe  Scope  and  Method  of 
Political  Economy.  This,  like  Eormal  Logic,  became  and  remained 
for  many  years  the  standard  English  treatise  on  the  subject.  It 
has  not  been  replaced  by  a work  of  comparable  scop(\  It  has  the 
same  qualities  as  Eormal  Logic,  accuracy  of  thought,  lucidity  of 
style,  thorough  scholarship,  balanced  judgment  a»d  fairness  to 
all  parties  in  matters  of  controversy.  It  does  not  claim  to  blaze 
a new  trail.  It  is  modest,  and  therewith  has  authority.  The 
reader  has  the  comfortable  feeling  that  he  is  on  solid  ground,  that 
a widely  read  scholar  and  master  of  precise  thinking  is  carrying 
him  to  the  limit,  but  not  beyond  the  limit,  of  what  can  safely  be 
accepted,  and  that  no  touch  of  egoism  is  biasing  the  authoi.  In 
June  1891  he  was  awarded  a Doctorate  of  Science  by  Caml)ridgc 
University,  and  Maynard  faged  eight)  was  present  at  the  cere- 
mony. Maynard,  with  his  varied  gifts,  has  captured  the  imagina- 
tion of  mankind  and  succeeded  in  influencing  the  course  of  history 
to  a notable  extent ; but  John  Neville  has  also  his  own  special 
claims  to  be  remembered  by  future  generations. 

In  1890  Maynard  was  sent  to  the  Perse  School  Kindergarten  ; 
one  does  not  learn  much  at  institutions  of  this  kind,  and  Maynard 
was  given  his  elementary  instruction  at  home.  In  1892  he  began 
his  more  public  life  by  going  as  a day  boy  to  St.  Faith’s  pre- 
paratory school,  of  which  Mr.  Goodchild  was  headmaster. 
In  the  same  year,  his  father  made  a step  forward  in  his  career 
of  varied  interests,  by  being  promoted  to  be  Secretary  of  the 
Local  Examinations  and  Lectures  Syndicate.  For  eighteen  years 

» Letter  to  J.  N.  ICeynes  from  Alfred  Marshall,  7th  February  1889. 


aet.9]  home  and  ETON  ii 

he  was  the  organiser  of  the  important  and  rapidly  developing 
work  for  which  this  Syndicate  was  responsible.  In  due  course 
he  became  the  leading  administrator  in  the  University  and  held 
the  supreme  position  of  Registrary  from  1910  to  1925.^  Many 
tributes  have  been  paid  to  his  excellent  work  in  this  capacity. 
It  may  be  most  appropriate  to  quote  his  son,  whose  words,  even 
if  biased  on  this  subject,  arc  of  interest  to  us.  In  August  1942 
Dr.  and  Mrs.  Neville  Keynes  celebrated  the  diamond  anniversary 
of  their  wedding.  There  are  some  very  rough  notes  in  pencil  of 
what  Maynard  proposed  to  say  at  the  family  gathering.  After 
touching  tributes  to  his  mother  and  his  father,  he  proceeds  to  say 
of  the  latter : 

Let  me  look  at  him  more  from  the  outside  for  a moment.  I saw 
him  for  a long  period  as  he  was  in  the  University.  For  thirty-three 
years  he  was  one  of  the  best  administrators  there  ever  was  and  during 
those  years  this  University  was  a better  place  in  my  judgment  than 
it  has  ever  been  before  or  since.  Perfect  order  and  accuracy  without 
•a  shadow^  of  pedantry  and  red  tape,  the  machine  existing  for  the 
sake  of  the  University  and  not  the  other  way  round  as  it  sometimes 
seems  to  be  now.  He  really  helped  to  create  a framework  within 
which  learning  and  science  and  education  could  live  and  flourish 
without  feeling  restraint  or  a hampering  hand,  and  he  combined 
this  with  himself  possessing  learning  and  science  and  education  at 
the  highest  level  — which  no  one  now  seems  to  be  able  to  do. 

^Vhile  Dr.  Keynes  was  thus  busy,  his  wife  had  many  practical 
activities  of  her  owii.  She  was  one  of  the  first  to  plan  a Juvenile 
Labour  Exchange,  which  was  afterwards  taken  over  by  the  local 
authority  and  finally  absc* ’bed  in  the  national  scheme.  She  was 
also  concerned  with  the  establishment  of  Papworth  Village  Settle- 
ment which  revolutionised  the  lives  of  those  suffering  from 
chronic  tuberculosis.  Small  pensions  were  given  by  the  Charity 
Organisation  Society,  of  which  she  was  the  local  secretary  for 
many  years,  to  old  people  living  in  great  penury.  She  had  much 
to  do  with  helping  familic  ‘\ack  on  to  their  feet  when  they  had 
been  thrown  into  the  wwkhouse  on  account  of  the  bread-winner's 
unemployment,  the  help  being  especially  needed  because  he  was 
not  allowed  out  of  the  workhouse  unless  he  took  his  family  with 
him,  and  some  arrangements  for  this  had  to  be  made  in  advance. 

^ In  1892  he  was  ileetec!  to  the  Council  of  the  Senate.  In  1893  he  became  its 
honorary  secretary,  a position  which  sceins  at  that  time  to  have  been  more  influential 
that  ll^in  of  the  Rcgisiraiy.  When  Keynes  became  Registrary  in  1910  the  two 
oflices  were  combined. 


12  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1892-4 

All  these  reforms  proceeded  slowly  and  with  great  difficulty  owing 
to  the  parsimony  of  the  government  in  providing  funds  for  the 
social  services. 

Mrs.  Keynes  was  in  fact  a great  pioneer.  It  may  well  be  that 
her  practical  humanity  made  a deeper  impression  on  Maynard’s 
young  mind  than  the  abstract  doctrines  of  the  social  philosophers, 
who  were  sometimes  a little  remote  from  the  sordid  realities.  In 
her  activities  Maynard  could  see  the  reforming  spirit  of  Cambridge 
taking  effect  and  bringing  solace  to  afflicted  persons. 

Whilst  the  Keyneses  were  thus  much  occupied  on  active  work 
in  their  several  spheres,  their  main  interest  remained  centred 
upon  their  own  home.  They  had  no  great  love  of  social  entangle- 
ments, reserving  their  leisure  hours  for  their  best  friends,  and, 
above  all,  for  their  children.  Reading  aloud  was  a favourite  enter- 
tainment, the  father  reading  Dickens  to  the  family,  of  Maynard 
poetry  to  his  sister;  there  were  trips  to  London  to  see  plays, 
carefully  chosen  to  suit  the  awakening  powers  of  the  boy ; Dr. 
Keynes  had  a special  love  for  the  theatre,  a trait  inherited  by 
Maynard. 

There  were  no  signs  of  the  infant  prodigy  in  Mftynard’s  early 
years  at  Mr.  Goodchild’s.  There  were  fairly  good  reports,  and 
reports  not  so  good,  which  contained  complaints  of  carelessness. 
I’here  were  indeed  j efercnccs  at  the  age  of  eight  to  his  being  quick 
at  arithmetic  and  algebra  and  to  his  large  \ocabulary.  But  on  the 
whole,  progress  appears  to  have  been  slow.  'Jliere  was  more 
than  the  usual  allowance  of  colds,  c oughs,  tempenitures  and  head- 
aches. The  diary  has  a reference  to  the  school  driving  him  too 
hard,  to  his  being  away  from  school  for  a large  part  of  one  term 
in  1893,  his  taking  a whole  term  away  from  school  in  the 

autumn  of  that  year.  There  seems  to  have  been  some  frailty  of 
constitution,  which  continued  to  give  rise  to  anxiety  until  the 
age  of  fifteen,  and  less  frequently  thereafter.  He  was  not  robust. 
Up  to  a point  he  was  careful  in  this  matter ; throughout  his  life 
he  did  much  of  his  work  while  lying  in  bed  in  the  morning.  But 
his  tireless  mind  and  fiery  spirit  took  charge,  dominated  his  body, 
made  it  sustain  labours  that  would  soon  have  broken  a much 
stronger  man  — and  in  the  end  he  overtaxed  it. 

He  does  not  appear  to  have  made  many  friends  at  Mfr.  Good- 
child’s.  None  the  less  he  seems  to  have  had  the  power  to  exert 
influence  in  a characteristic  way.  ^Ve  hear  of  a “ slave  who 
walked  behind  him,  at  a respectful  distance,  carrying  his  books 


AET.  14]  HOME  AND  ETON  15 

Maynard  was  due  to  go  to  Eton  on  22nd  September,  but  on 
19th  September  he  had  a feverish  attack  and  had  to  go  to  school 
three  days  late. 

Mrs.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  26th  September  iSgj 

I very  much  wish  you  were  here  so  that  I could  tell  you  our 
experiences  yesterday.  ...  I am  sure  you  will  be  glad  to  hear  first 
of  all  that  the  dear  hoy  seemed  very  much  better  and  when  I left 
him  said  that  he  felt  hardly  more  tired  than  he  would  have  done 
under  ordinary  circumstances.  ...  By  the  way,  Miss  Hackett  says 
she  believes  Maynard  is  bigger  than  his  fi\g-mastcr  (Macnaghten)  ! 
'J'his  is  a relief  to  mother  [his  grandmother]  who  seems  to  be  under 
the  impression  that  fags  are  beaten  and  generally  ill-treated  by  their 
masters.  . . . 

Maynard  played  up  by  writing  one  letter  to  his  father  and  another 
to  his  mother  on  that  same  first  day,  giving  an  hourly  narrative 
of  events.  Admission  to  college  is  described  as  ‘‘  something  like 
having  your  degree  ”. 

The  letters  to  his  father  continued  as  a matter  of  weekly 
routine.  At  first  they  were  a little  thin,  suggesting  an  attempt, 
not  always  successful,  to  cover  four  pages  of  writing-paper.  But 
in  his  second  year  at  school  the  letters  thickened  and  became  much 
more  interesting  and  lively,  bristling  with  news  and  viev/s.  A 
paradox.  The  trend  with  schoolboys  is  usually  the  other  way. 
With  adolescence  c.  d the  crowding  in  of  new  interests,  thoughts, 
friendships  and  intellectual  adventures,  there  is  apt  to  be  a falling- 
off'  in  the  zeal  for  writing  home.  For  this  week’s  letter  there  is 
no  time ; the  next  week’s  is  a little  pcrfuTictor)  ; one  must  write 
to  one’s  parents,  but  the  duty  is  found  a trifle  burdensome.  If 
Maynard  moved  in  the  opposite  direction,  that  is  certainly  a 
tribute  to  his  father’s  sympathy  and  fond  interest  in  every  detail 
of  school  life.  It  is  also  symptomatic  of  certain  qualities  in  May- 
nard. For  one  thing,  there  was  that  extraordinary  intellectual 
capaciousness.  If  a thousand  other  interests  were  pressing  in, 
there  was  still  ample  room  for  a full  and  growing  communication 
of  thoughts  with  his  father.  So  it  was  all  through  his  life ; the  new 
interest  did  not  drive  out  the  old ; both  could  be  accommodated 
together.  It  was  also,  perhaps,  a symptom  of  the  strength  and 
magisterial  qualit>  of  Maynard’s  mind.  His  ideas  were  so  well 
founded  and  strong  in  good  sense,  that  he  ^as  not  bashful,  as 


i6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1S97 

schoolboys  so  often  are,  of  showing  them  to  his  parents.  He  had 
enough  self-confidence  to  believe  they  would  be  interesting.  And 
so  the  full  flow  of  correspondence  continued  and  grew. 

Every  detail  of  school  affairs  was  discussed : what  work  was 
being  done  — sometimes  mathematical  problems, were  transcribed 
in  full  — what  games  were  played,  what  school  events  were  taking 
place,  how  the  other  boys  were  progressing,  the  pros  and  cons  of 
changes  in  curricula.  The  father  got  to  know  about  Maynard’s 
contemporaries  so  well  that  he  could  give  a comprehensive  fore- 
cast of  their  order  in  the  Newcastle  Prize  examination. 

The  letters  show  extremely  clearly  how  absorbingly  interested 
Maynard  was  in  the  work,  the  games  and  the  whole  life  of  the 
school.  It  became  his  passion.  It  may  certainly  be  claimed  that 
Eton  greatly  helped  his  development.  He  found  there  associates 
who  were  congenial  to  him,  youths  of  intellectual,  distinction 
with  whom  he  could  quickly  get  on  to  terms  of  intimacy  on  the 
basis  of  common  interests.  They  had  self-confidence,  enquiring 
minds  and  a ga>  and  carefree  outlook.  His  own  great  fund  of 
gaiety,  of  fun  and  satire,  found  scope.  It  is  not  clear  that  there 
are  many  schools  in  the  world  where  one  can  fiud  a wide  choice 
of  companions  of  this  quality;  it  is  clear  that  he  needed  this 
society  and  that  in  his  school-days  his  imagination  was  already 
stimulated  and  taking  wing. 


His  mother  had  taken  him  there  and  left  him,  rather  anxious 
about  his  health  and  strength,  knowing  his  charming,  kindly 
character  and  his  excellent,  clever  companionship  in  the  home, 
pleased  at  the  rapid  progress  which  he  had  finally  made  in  the 
preparatory  school,  but  with  some  doubts,  surely,  as  to  how  he 
would  stand  up  to  the  exacting  tests  of  a larger  world.  We  have 
seen  how  rapidly  he  had  been  growing  physically  in  the  previous 
year  — taller  ” on  arrival  “ than  his  fhg-maslcr  ” ! • It  turned 
out  that  this  gave  him  a good  start.  Mr.  Hopc-Jones,  who  was 
in  his  election  as  a scholar  and  afterwards  became  a master  at 
Eton  for  many  years,  recalls  the  impression  made  by  his  tall 
stature  on  his  contemporaries.  He  was  a little  their  senior,  not 
in  years,  but  in  months,  which  arc  important  at  that  time  of  life. 
His  voice  had  already  broken.  He  seemed  quite  a young  man  in 
their  midst.  They  at  once  looked  to  him  for  leadership.  If  a 
group  was  summohed  for  a misdemeanour  by  the  aulhdritics,  it 


Abr  i4i  HOMK  AND  ElON  17 

was  assumed,  without  pause  or  question,  that  he  would  be  their 
spokesman.  This  young  boy,  so  carefully  cherished  in  the  home, 
careful  of  his  own  comforts  also,  fastidious,  ailing,  the  product  of 
a day-s<'hool  only,  suddenly  became  by  accidents  ol  premature 
growth  and  a broken  voice,  the  spokesman  of  his  group  at  Eton. 
And  what  a spokesman ! His  friends  could  not  at  first  have 
known  what  manner  of  man  was  among  them  ! For  all  the 
divine  gifts  none  was  lavished  upon  him  so  iinstiiitingly,  in  no 
sphere  has  his  talent  been  so  peerless  and  undisputed,  as  spokes- 
manship.  He  became  a natural  leader  at  once.  Fioin  St.  Faith’s 
to  Eton,  the  transition  was  easily  m«ide.  His  c areer  now  began  in 
earnest. 


J.  M,  Ktynes  to  JD).  J.  .V.  Knnes,  yd  (htoho  iSoy 

...  1 like  Ml.  Lubbock  vciy  much.  . . lie  js  g(  ing  to  lead 
some  Homer  with  me  as  private  woik.  . . . My  lag-niasici  i>  veiy 
nice  to  me,  and  if  he  has  anything  ('\ua  loi  me  to  do  alway*^  asks 
me  if  I am  suie  I have  nothing  else  I w^ant  to  do.  He*  dcjes  not  want 
me  to  c all  him  in  tlic  morning  as  most  do. 


J.  M,  htynes  to  M}\.  Kfyms,  irth  Oclobet  j8(/y 

lo  iny  gicat  suipiise  I liave  come  out  to]>  ol  the  dnisioii  m the 
Ibi  might ly  01  dci.  , . . M>  toldi'^Ma)  miuh  bettci. 

Iheie  are  a good  m n\  icassuiantcs  about  JicMlth  in  these  ^uly 
letters. 


J.  M.  hnmes  lo  Dt  J.  ,V.  heyms^  lylh  Oitohi)  iHyj 

, . . On  my  1 isl  ptose  1 had  (I  tlimk'l  Style  good  but  too  many 
imslakes And  on  the  \<ise  ‘‘ Bel  lei  but  too  many  lihmdcis  ’. 
Do  nc)t  laugh  and  sav  “ c airless  as  us  id 

Still  the  child  in  this  lettci  ! 

Ibid. 


Last  night  w^e  had  chamber  singing  which  was  a glorious  lag 
lasting  an  hour  and  a half.  All  fags  arc  required  to  sing,  but  not 
many  of  the  oldei  ones  are  piesent,  and  after  llie  fags  have  finished, 
severaParc  called  upon  and  the  night  is  made  hidc-ous  with  the  low. 

(J 


i8  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1897 

I will  leave  you  to  guess  what  I sang,  but  it  was  the  success  of 
the  evening  (as  far  as  the  fags  go)  and  w^as  the  only  one  to  be  encored 
later  in  the  evening. 

This  notable  song,  which  betame  a standard  item,  was  entitled 
“ Three  Blue  Bottles 

iM.  Keynes  to  Du.  J.  M.  Keynes^  6th  December 

Last  night  Ciollege  Pop  Supper  took  place  and  I and  tliiee  other 
fags  were  d<'puted  to  wait.  Iney  had  a glorious  feed,  turkey, 
champagne,  etc.  ^\  hen  the>  got  to  the  dessert  stage,  we  fags  retired 
to  Lower  Tea  Room  iiiid  made  a supper  off  the  lemains  and  a bottle 
of  champ«igne.  As  one  of  the  fags  did  not  lake  an\,  the  other  three 
had  to  do  their  duty  and  finish  it. 

When  we  liad  finished,  we  went  in  again  <nid  songs  (‘tc.  pioceedcd 
for  al)out  an  lioin.  I was  < ailed  on  to  sing  T.B.B.”.  Afterwsaids 
w'f‘  handed  cofl'ce  round.  In  fart  we  had  a very  fine  time. 


J.  M.  Knws  to  Di.  J.  A.  Kiyms,  jjlh  Dtamho  ilUjj 

I was  not  the  iag  wlio  <(bsiaiiied  hoin  diampctgne.  . . . 

Maynard  was  not  (ouupled  b\  this  rail)  initiation;  throughout 
his  life  he  Wtis  always  abslciuious  in  such  matters.  But  in  his  last 
tw'o  or  three  yeais  lie  was  in  the  habit  of  saying  on  festive  occasions 
that  the  oiilv  thing  he  seiiously  regretted  about  the  way  in  wdiieh 
he  had  managed  his  lil(  was  that  he  had  lu^t  drunk  mote  cham- 
j)agne  ! Was  he  recalling  these  eaily  celeliratious  of  his  school- 
day Proliably  not,  as  he  IKecl  (*ssentiallv  in  the  moment. 
Perhaps  there  was  some  semi-conscious  leininisecnce.  J'he  past 
lives  on  and  * olours  the  piesent.  Wlio  is  that  interesting  looking 
man,  with  a glass  of  champagne  in  his  hand,  talking  so  tinimatedly 
at  the  wedding  paity  '!  Is  it  a great  statesman,  upon  whose 
wisdom  the  financial  solvems  of  Britain  herself  depends,  as  by  a 
till  cad,  a man  gravely  ill,  although  so  talkathe  and  gay,  a man 
barely  kept  ali\e  by  medical  skill  and  the  tireless  devotion  of  his 
wife?  ()i  is  it  a young  man,  tall  beyond  his  yc'ars,  his  voice  only 
recently  bioken,  pat  taking  in  the  festivities  of  C-Iollege  Pop? 

At  the  end  of  his  first  half”  ^ he  came  out  first  tor  classics. 
He  had  been  pushed  up  three  divisions  at  the  end  of  the  first 
fortnight  in  mathematics,  but  none  the  less  came  out  second.  He 

* \ “ d Irini.  'lliifr  li.ilvrs  inakt  one  >c«'ir  at  fann.  ^ 


AET.  14]  HOME  AND  ETON  19 

had  evidently  got  into  his  stride.  His  curve  of  development,  which 
had  risen  so  sharply  in  his  last  year  or  two  at  St.  Faith’s,  was 
proceeding  upwards  and  carrying  him  well  beyond  the  level  of 
the  previous  July,  when  he  had  only  been  elected  tenth  t(^  Ellon. 
In  this  first  term,.t»  copy  of  his  verses  was  “ sent  up  for  good  ”, 
By  this  Eton  custom,  good  compositions  and  mathematical  solu- 
tions were  transcribed,  l)ound  up  and  deposited  in  the  College 
Library.  Numerous  classical  compositions  and  mathematical 
sums  in  Maynard's  hand  may  be  inspected  there.  Some  may 
regret  that  the  practice  of  preserving  these  fair  copies  has  been 
discontinued. 

At  the  end  of  this  term  he  was  selected  at  the  head  of  the  list 
to  Chamber  Pop,  a debating  society  for  those  in  Chamber,  i.e, 
who  have  not  yet  acquired  rooms  of  their  own.  Excellent  reports 
came  in.  Lubbock  noted  tliat  he  had  “ a real  healthy  interest  in 
all  the  doings  of  College,  athletic  and  otherwise 

Next  term  was  interrupted  by  measles  and  absence.  Despite 
this, •jjrogrcss  appears  to  ha\r  bc(‘n  made.  In  ihc,  following  term 
he  was  captain  of  Chamber  and  won  the  Junior  Mathematical 
Prize.  “ Maynard  will  be  returning  to  you  with  his  honoius  thick 
upon  him.  ...  I have  been  delighted  to  sec'  that  lie  takes  no 
half-hearted  interest  in  his  own  games  and  those  of  the  school.”  ^ 
Characteristic  touclies  began  to  appear  in  Maynard's  letters. 

J.  AI,  Keynes  lo  Dr.  J,  Keynes,  nth  Oclohe)  i8()8 

Tuck  preached  in  Lower  Chapel  aliout  bicycling,  comparing  it 
to  life.  He  compared  the  tf^legraph  posts  to  guardian  angels.  1 
wish  1 could  have  lieen  there.  He  promiserl  one  on  football  next 

Sunday. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  r^th  February  iSfjg 

The  Reverend  the  Provost  preache<l  to-day.  He  really  ought  not 
to  be  allow^ed  to.  . , . 

J.  At.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  M.  Keyties,  ^oth  April  i8yg 

T had  a short  conversation  ivith  Professor  D.arwiii  - at  the  end  of 
the  journey.  His  hands  certainly  looked  as  if  he  might  be  descended 
from  an  ape. 

‘ Mr.  S.  G.  Lubbock  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Kryncs,  28th  July  1898. 

^ Sir  George  Darwin. 


20  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1800 

This  is  tlie  first  recorded  reference  to  hands.  Observation  of 
hands  remained  a lifelong  interest ; he  thought  that  they  were  the 
best  guide  to  character.  At  one  time  he  had  casts  made  of  his 
own  and  his  wife’s  hands,  and  even  talked  of  making  a collection 
of  his  friends’. 

Extract  from  the  “ Economic  Comequences  of  the  Peace  Description 
of  President  Wilson 

and  liis  hands,  though  capable  and  fairly  strong,  were  wanting  in 
sensitiveness  and  finesse.* 

Extract  from  a description  of  President  Roosevelt  on  his  first  meeting  him 
in  1934 

. . . But  at  first,  of  course,  I did  not  look  closely  at  these  things. 
For  naturally  my  concentrated  attention  was  on  his  hands.  Rather 
disappointing.  Firm  and  fairly  strong,  but  not  clever  or  with  finesse, 
shortish  round  nails  like  those  at  the  end  of  a business-man’s  fingers. 
1 cannot  draw  them  right,  yet  while  not  distinguished  (to  my^eye) 
they  are  not  of  a common  type.  All  the  same,  they  were  oddly 
familiar.  Where  had  I seen  them  before  ? I spent  ten  minutes  at 
least  searching  my  memory  as  for  a forgotten  name,  hardly  knowing 
what  I was  saying  about  silver  and  bfilanced  budgets  and  public 
works.  At  last  it  came  to  me.  Sir  Edward  Grey.  A more  solid 
and  Americanised  Sir  Edward  Grey.  The  idea  will  probably  mislead 
you,  but  there  is  a grain  of  significant  truth  in  it.  Much  cleverer, 
much  more  fertile,  sensitive,  and  permeable,  but  something  all  the 
same,  which  corresponded  lo  tho.se  finger  nails  and  carried  me  back 
to  Sir  Edward  Grey. 

Let  it  not  be  thought  that  the  boyish  joke  about  Professor  Darwin 
implied  any  predisposition  to  be  hostile  to  the  theory  of  natural 
selection  ! 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  B,  W,  Simihinbanky  13th  May  1908 

. . . Really  the  most  substantial  joys  I get  are  from  the  percep- 
tion of  logical  arguments,  and,  oh,  from  reading  Darwin's  life.  How 
superb  it  is.  Surely  he  was  the  greatest  and  best  and  happiest  of 
men. 

* Monsieur  Eiicnne  de  Mantoux  in  The  Carthaginian  Peace,  a severe  criticism  of 
Keynes*  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace^  took  him  to  task  for  regarding  the  shape  of 
the  President’s  hands  ^ relevant.  Why  not  also  reveal  to  the  woi^d  Wilson 
wore  pince-nez  and  that  Lloyd-George  had  a grey  moustache  ? % • * ' ^ 


AET.  lOj 


HOME  AND  ETON 


21 


In  the  next  half  we  leam  that  Maynard  was  awarded  full 
marks  for  an  essay  on  the  Responsibilities  of  Empire  Some 
responsibilities  were  to  fall  on  him  later ! It  is  satisfactory  to 
know  that  his  opinions  were  considered  quite  perfect  by  Eton 
in  1 899,  His  masks  in  the  examination  this  half  were  considered 
remarkable — 1156  out  of  1400—  and  Mr.  Lubbock  adds,  in 
his  work  there  is  absolutely  nothing  of  the  mercenary,  mark-getting 
feeling.  . . . He  takes  a real  interest  in  anything  which  it  is  worth 
while  to  be  interested  in." 

His  interest  in  the  athletic  side  of  things  remained  keen.  ‘‘  I 
have  been  out  on  the  river  every  day  this  week.  I enjoyed  rowing 
immensely  and  wonder  now  why  anyone  ever  remains  a drybob."  * 
‘‘  T have  never  watched  such  an  exciting  match  " (cricket  match 
against  Winchester)  “ and  at  the  end  of  it  was  a mental  and 
physical  wreck.’'  ^ 

This  term  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  select  list  in  the  Senior 
Mathematical  Prize.  5th  August,  Mr.  Lubbock  wrote  : 

* . . . He  is  never  unduly  elated  by  the  mere  getting  of  a prize 
and  seems  to  realise  fully  that  handsomely  bound  volumes  are  not 
the  most  important  result  of  learning.  Moreover  the  manner  in 
which  his  work  is  done  and  the  attitude  he  takes  towards  his  various 
masters  are  as  nice  and  good  as  they  can  be  and  it  says  much  for 
him  that  some  very  illiterate  members  of  my  pupil-room  with  whom 
he  comes  into  contact,  like  and  respect  him  a good  deal. 

d'his  summer  the  familv  holiday  was  at  Tintagel. 


Extract  from  Dr.  J.  jV.  Keynes'  Diary,  6th  August 

Our  pleasure  in  our  children  has,  I think,  never  been  greater 
than  it  is  now,  and  during  the  summer  holiday,  we  liave  them  so 
entirely  with  us.  We  are  certainly  a very  happy  quintet. 

Jn  the  next  half,  the  first  of  his  third  year --he  was  now 
already  sixteen  — he  was  up  to  Broadbent,  a famous  and  rather 
formidable  Eton  master,  distinguished  scholai,  occasional  corre- 
spondent with  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff  himself.  Maynard  had 
a word  of  praise  for  him.  He  also  began  at  this  time  to  go  for 
histoiy  to,G.  H.  K.  Marten,  beloved  of  many  generations,  who 
eventually  became  Provost  of  Eton.  This  half  wo  find  him  playing 
in  the  famous  Eton  College  Wall  game. 

♦ LtMier  from  J.  M.  Kt*yne*s»  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Ke\nrs,  ^th  Ma> 

2 Ibid.  25th  June  1899. 


22  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [iqoo 

And  now,  while  things  proceeded  thus  placidly  at  Eton, 
Britain  was  involved  in  the  Boer  War.  It  is  not  clear  to  what 
extent  deeper  questions  of  right  and  wrong,  such  as  harassed  the 
mind  in  1914,  were  pondered  by  the  schoolboy.  He  took  a com- 
mon-sense view  about  his  own  position  ; he  showed  signs  of  that 
healthy  optimism  which  was  to  serve  him  in  good  stead  at  more 
momentous  crises ; we  sec  signs  of  the  statistician  peeping  out. 


J.  A/.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  jV.  Keynes^  sand  October  i8gg 

...  1 am  no  more  jingo  than  I was  previously,  but  now  that 
war  has  l)rgun  oru'  must  perforce  be  reconciled  to  it.  Besides,  when 
writing  for  such  journals  as  the  it  is  necessary  to  be  a little 

rampant  to  keep  up  its  circulation. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  D).  J.  N.  Keyjies^  lylft  December  i8gg 

1 agree  with  you  that  the  news  from  South  Africa  is  bad, 
especially  lliis  last  reverse  of  Buller.  But  we  console  ourselves  with 
history  which  mak(‘s  our  losses  and  reverses  seem  ^uny.  In  the 
battle  of  Albuera,  nearly  one  hundred  years  ago  in  the  Peninsular 
war,  our  losses  were  seven  times  as  heavy  per  cent  as  at  the  Modder 
River,  yet  wc  won.  People  arc  so  terribly  eager  to  get  up  a scare 
that  they  make  the  failure  of  ours  to  make  the  Boers  to  evacuate  a 
position  as  bad  as  if  we  ourselves  had  evacuated  a position.  It  is 
rather  decej)tivc  too,  including  in  the  term  losses,  wounded  and 
missing  as  well  as  killed. 

It  is  hard  luck  on  generals  that  news  should  be  transmitted  so 
quickly.  The  people  do  not  sec  the  result  of  the  campaign  but 
seem  to  gloat  over  every  little  loss.  70  men  killed  in  a battle  is 
terrible  for  their  families,  but  it  is  a tiny  loss  for  a nation  of  30 
million. 


J.  A'l.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keyjies,  2gth  January  igoc) 

This  morning  the  Head  gave  us  a stirring  oration  on  the  volunteer 
movement.  He  declared  it  to  be  in  the  present  circumstances  the 
duly  of  all  to  get  what  military  training  they  could,  and  he  said  that 
he  expected  all  boys  of  the  right  age  to  join  our  corps. 

For  once  in  a way  his  words  liavc  had  effect  and  people  arc 

‘ A iloiiirsti(  prodiK  lion,  t>y  llio  Koyii<*s  childmi. 


AET.  I6]  HOME  AND  ETON  23 

joining  and  being  coerced  into  joining  in  tlirongs,  including  all 
sixth  form  and  the  greater  part  of  College. 

Am  I to  join  ? 

I am  not  keen  and  the  drills  will  be  a nuisance,  but  1 am  perfectly 
willing  to  do  so  if  I ouglil.  It  would  be  unpleasant  to  be  almost  the 
only  non-shooter.  . . . 

Extract  f}om  Di.  Keynes  Dian^  jis/  Januai  y jqoo 

We  pronounce  no  veto.  He  may  do  as  he  likes. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dt.  J.  N.  Keynes^  4th  Ft  h man  kjoo 

. . . About  the  volunteers  — I hav(‘  not  joined. 

’^J'akinjT  into  regaid  itiy  feelings  and  the  terms  of  your  letter,  I 
consulted  people  and  they  agiecd  (hat  J sliould  l)e  jtistified  in  not 
joining. 

1 wavered  a little  and  hey  prestf),  it  was  done  - or  rather  it 
was  not  done. 

I think  that  without  youi  letter  which  amountt'd  to  *1  refusal  I 
think  I should  have  been  compelled  to  be  engulfed  in  this  marvellous 
martial  ardour  that  has  seized  the  school. 

Some  say  that  jjatriolism  lequircs  one  to  join  the  useless  Eton 
shooters,  but  it  seems  to  me  to  be  the  soil  of  patriotism  that  requires 
one  to  wave  the  Union  Jack. 

Ten  more  beaks  have  joined  than  were  members  beforCs  includ- 
ing my  beloved  tiimr 

There  are  well  o\er  100  rec  ruits. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Du  J.  jV.  Ac  ms,  iith  Fehman  igoo 

...  As  a matter  of  fart  less  than  half  our  election  have  joined 
the  shooters,  ljut  most  of  the  people  that  I see  much  of  have. 

You  can  resign  whenever  you  like,  but  the  preliminary  drills 
are  a dreadful  nuisance.  You  have'  to  go  directly  after  early  school 
and  get  no  proper  breakfast  and  O so  cold  ! Wc  all  agree  that  it  is 
easier  to  die  for  your  country  than  to  go  without  yciur  breakfast  for 
it.  There  are  about  130  recruits. 

It  may  be  conjectured  that  his  anxious  parents  were  unwilling 
for  him  to  put  this  extra  strain  upon  his  physique. 

At  this  age  he  was  already  showing  independent  literary 
judgment. 


24  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [looo 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  N.  Keynes^  25th  Februaiy  igoo 

...  I have  finished  Red  Pottage,^ 

It  is  quite  readal)le  and  improves  after  about  half  way,  but  it 
is  not  more  than  readable,  and,  to  my  mind,  quite  unworthy  of  the 
extravagant  praise  which  has  been  lavished  upon  it. 

It  has,  as  you  said  of  Isabel  Carnaby,  the  stamp  of  the  “ lady 
writer  ” upon  it.  Many  of  the  incidents  are  grossly  impossible  and 
the  characters  are  inclined  to  be  overdrawn,  'rhe  whole  book  has 
an  aroma  of  unreality  about  it,  and  it  is  rather  the  work  of  an  amateur. 
Of  course  the  heroine  writes  novels ; that  was  inevitable  from  the 
beginning. 


J,  M,  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  J\f.  Keynes^  iSth  March  igoo 

Broader  has  developed  into  a most  consummate  wag.  He  is  quite 
the  funniest  man  I have  ever  been  up  lo,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
most  supremely  rude.  1 think  that  this  arises  from  his  candour.  H(' 
does  not  mind  telling  a diap  before  the  division  if  he  considers,  him 
10  have  ability  and  at  (he  same  time  he  docs  not  mind  pointing  out 
another  chap  as  a muddle-headed  imbec  ile. 

Did  he  learn  something  from  Broader? 


7.  M.  Kevnes  to  Dt.  J.  N.  Keynes^  2jth  Febnmt  v igoo 

...  I was  reading  the  other  day  the  first  volume  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  College  Pop.  The  Revd.  K.  Parr  was  master  in 
College  at  the  time  of  its  foundation  and  he  seems  to  have  done  a 
good  deal  to  help  it.  He  very  frequently  took  part  in  the  divisions. 
185.]  or  1855  was  the  date  I think.  Oscar  Browning  and  the  two 
Austen  Leighs,  one  of  whom  would  I suppose  be  the  present  Provost 
of  King’s,  were  among  the  original  members. 

A very  large  percentage  of  the  questions  they  discussed  were 
historical.  “ ^Vas  the  execution  of  Marshal  Ncy  justifiable  ? ” “ Is 
the  character  of  Ciomwell  to  be  admired?  ” etc.  etc.  I am  afraid 
that  they  are  not  so  deadly  serious  now-a-days.  I think  that  this 
was  an  epocli  when  the  Eton  boy  was  in  danger  of  taking  himself 
too  seriously.  There  were  no  athletics  to  speak  of  and  he  would 
perambulate  the  country  and  enlarge  on  the  beauties,  of  nature. 
They  upheld  the  slave  system  in  America  and  condemned  the  ballot 
by  a large  majority. 

As  far  as  I remember  O.B.  was  anti-slavery,  but  the  Prpvost  (at 
' By  Mai->  Cholmondelcy.  Mr.  Percy  Lubbock  thought  her  worthy  of  a Memoir. 


AFT  16]  HOME  AND  ETON  25 

least  cither  he  or  his  brother)  thought  that  the  lot  of  the  slave  was 
better  as  it  was. 

They  condemned  the  system  of  corporal  punishment  at  Eton 
which  seems  to  me  extraordinary  for  this  time. 


Extract  from  Dk  J.  jV.  Keynes"  Diayy,  ^th  Aptil  igoo 

Maynard  played  golf  with  Sidgwick  at  Rovston,  He  enjoyed 
Sidgwick’s  talk  as  much  as  his  golf. 

This  was  a few  months  before  the  tragic  death  of  the  philosopher. 

The  reports  of  Lubbock  and  others  proceeded  in  a crescendo 
of  praise,  but  there  was  one  exception.  In  the  summer  haF, 
Maynard  was  up  to  Mr.  X,  a respected  master  and  ver)  famous 
cricketer,  nearing  the  end  of  his  time. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Di.  J.  jV.  Keynes^  Gth  May  u^oo 

As  I said  befoie,  we  aie  all  up  to  X.  1 could  hardly  have  im- 
agined that  a man  could  he  so  dull ; anyhow  I shall  not  suffer  from 
want  of  sleep  this  half.  . . . 


Repay  t by  Mr,  X,  July  rgoo 

. . . Rather  a provcjking  boy  in  scIhjoI.  Rc.ids  notes  when  he 
should  be  attending  lo  the  lesson.  Apt  to  talk  to  his  neighbour 
unless  severely  icpressed.  He  gives  on^*  the  idea  of  legaidii^g  himself 
as  a piivilegcd  boy  with  perhaps  a little  intellectual  conceit. 

Neither  the  other  masters  nor  his  Eton  contemj)oraries 
endorsed  this  view.  On  the  contrary  he  seems  to  have  taken  his 
successes  with  perfect  grace.  But  Mr.  X’s  report  expresses  a view 
that  has  often  been  held  subsequently.^ 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  20th  May  igoo 

There  was  only  one  sane  person  in  Eton  yesterday  morning  and 
he  was  a pro-Boer.  We  did  not  get  the  news  the  evening  l)efore  and 
Bob  announced  it  to  everyone  as  they  were  called.  Instead  of  the 
customary  “ Are  you  properly  awake,  sir  ? ” it  was  “ Mafeking 
relieved,  sir.”  And  I think  this  latter  proved  to  be  the  more 

^ Mr?X  broke  down  completely  during  the  next  half  and  had  lo  gi\c  up  Ins  work 
at  Eton. 


2i]  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1900 

efficacious  in  waking  people  up.  After  early  school  it  soon  became 
apparent  that  Mafeking  was  going  to  be  responsible  for  a good 
many  things.  Feelings  were  first  of  all  let  off  at  Mr.  Broadbent’s 
House,  and  it  w^as  found  that  windows  and  exuberance  of  heart 
were  quite  incompatible.  When  there  were  no  more  left  to  break, 
the  Eton  Society  (there  is  nothing  like  Pop  for  keeping  order  on  these 
occasions)  drove  off  the  mob. 

I’hcn  successive  w'aves  of  ideas  passed  over  the  school,  affecting 
the  lower  l)ovs  most  seriously.  At  8.30  everyone  was  returning  with 
Union  Jack  pocket  handkerchiefs,  at  8.45  with  large  flags  of  all 
descriptions,  at  8.50  they  w^ere  nailing  scarlet  bed  covcilets  on  to 
goal  posts  and  hoisting  them  out  of  the  window,  at  9.0  everyone 
was  possessed  of  a trumpet  or  a horn  or  some  diabolical  wind 
instrument,  by  9.13  iieople  wTre  becoming  original  and  Japanese 
umbrellas  and  laiirci  wreaths  weie  the  order  of  the  day. 

Iwerything  W'as  just  about  six  times  its  value  and  finally  it  cost  a 
shilling  even  to  hire  a sixpenny  flag.  A lortune  must  have  been 
spent . 

Ill  chapel  we  sang  the  Nationtil  Anthem  and  as  we  were  g^nng 
into  school  a whole  holiday  was  announced.  This  was  fortunate 
for  hardly  a boy  in  the  school  had  learnt  his  lesson. 

Young  and  I,  though  w’e  did  not  spend  vast  sums,  got  the  best 
flag  in  College.  We  ainlnilaled  to  Windsor  and  pun  based  three 
yards  of  art  muslin  at  a draper’s,  a yard  of  each  of  the  colours, 
red,  white  and  blue,  at  /jjd.  a yard.  We  g^ive  the  man  i/]  and  as 
there  seemed  no  immediate  prospect  of  his  discovering  what  3 times 
44d.  meant,  we  hurried  from  the  shop  fen-  11.30  absence. 

Instead  of  absence,  the  Head  gave  us  an  oration  fiom  the  top 
of  chapel  steps,  1 never  heard  such  a voice.  Without  seemingly 
exerting  himself  he  made  llie  whole  of  the  school  yard  resound. 

It  was  the  usual  stuff.  Ought  to  show  our  thankfulness;  le- 
member  dignity  of  school ; if  anything  done  must  be  of  best ; as 
alw'ays  before.  And  the  outcome  of  it  all  was  that  w^e  had  Ix-en 
asked  to  take  pait  in  a huge  torchlight  procession  that  had  l:)ecn 
organised  in  Windsor : that  torches  liad  just  been  sent  for,  but  that 
these  w^ould  probably  bo  not  more  than  enough  for  the  volunteers. 
Young  and  I got  Moss  to  sew^  our  art  muslin  together.  We  nailed 
it  on  to  a goal  post  and  launched  it  from  the  top  tower  window.  It 
was  a symphony  nine  feet  long. 

At  8.30  wc  paraded  in  school  yard  for  thrc'C  quarters  6f  an  hour. 
We  formed  fours  and  manoeuvred  and  w^aited  until  the  rest  of  the 
procession  w^as  ready  for  us. 

Then  out  we  filed,  making  with  the  rest  a procession  tlfat  must 
have  been  a good  mile  long,  some  people  say  more. 


aet.  101  HOME  AND  ETON  27 

Our  course  was  through  Eton  and  Windsor  to  the  Long  Walk 
and  up  that  glorious  approach  to  the  castle  opposite  the  Long  Walk. 

At  one  point  the  crowd  was  tremendous  and  was  quite  as  much 
as  the  police  could  manage.  (London  could  not  spare  many  special 
ones  to  come  dqwn.) 

You  have  heard  me  before  on  the  Windsor  crowd,  but  last  night 
it  surpassed  itself.  The  men  were  reeling  drunk  and  the  women 
offensive  and  gross  beyond  words. 

It  was  a good  thing  that  it  was  Mafeking  and  not  the  Royal 
Borough  of  Windsor  that  was  besieged. 

Duiidas  went  on  leave  to  London  and  told  us  of  the  state  of 
things  there.  It  is  evident  that  the  wliole  nation  has  gone  in  for 
wliat  we  call  at  Eton  an  organised  i*ig.  Tlif*  papeis  call  it  a “ fervent 
thanksgiving  from  the  lieart 

I do  not  think  tliat  we  are  ejuit^'  sue  h hypocrites  here.  Most  of 
us  know  that  Mafeking  is  a glorioiis  pi  (‘text  foj  a vhole  holiday 
and  for  thi  owing  off  all  discipline.  We  do  not  break  windows 
because  we  are  mad  with  joy,  but  because  we  think  that  under  the 
circumstances  we  can  do  so  with  impunity. 

But  to  return  to  the  procession.  We  inarched  up  into  St. 
Geoig<*‘'s  (|uad  and  it  ^\as  thcic  a really  fine  sight.  'I'he  whole 
procession  came  up  into  it  and  th(‘  huge  scjuare  was  packed  and 
seemed  to  be  sown  with  loiches. 

We  manoeuvred  a little  and  then  swung  past  undeinealh  the 
C^hicen,  w'ho  was  scaled  in  (he  same  window^  as  on  the  occasion  of 
the  birthday  ccleliratiuns.  hi  d»»rkiKss  one  could  not  sec  more  than 
her  outline.  Our  sh^^oters  lealK  marched  past  <*xtremcdy  well  and 
then  WH"  sang  the  first  \'crse  of  God  Save  the  (iueen.  We  returned 
the  same  wwy  as  we  had  come  and  found  the  crowd  much  as 
ever : perhaps  a little  hoarser  and  rather  more  drunk. 

I’he  town  of  Windsor  is  the  fungus  (►n  the  Ro\al  Oak. 

We  got  back  to  school  yaid  at  ii.o  and  not  to  be  done  out  of 
“ knavish  tricks  ” and  roiifmnd  their  politics  w’c  tried  wath  the 
remains  of  voice  still  left  to  us  to  sing  all  three  verses.  .\'>  for  the 
processio'n  itself,  I necessarily  saw  very  little  of  it,  but  amongst  a 
judicious  blend  of  fire  brigades  and  Ghurch  f.ads'  ditto,  I savv  an 
impossible  veliicle  which  called  itself  an  ambulance,  and  the  inevit- 
able ‘‘  decorated  motors  and  cycles. 

Decorating  a cycle  consists  in  hanging  two  Chinese  lanterns  over 
the  handlebars  and  sw^athing  the  wheels  in  paper  until  they  will 
only  just  go  round. 

...  On  Friday  1 saw'  the  Qiicen  hettei  than  I have  ever  seen  her 
before.  She  drove  past  just  as  we  wine  going  into  school  and  though 
it  was  ([iiite  cold,  she  was  vri\  little  wr.ippc'd  up.  She  is  \ery  like 


28  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  U9oo 

her  photographs,  but,  doubtless  owing  to  the  coldness  of  the  day, 
her  nose  was  unfortunately  red. 

. . . The  squash  racquet  courts  . . . have  been  open  this 
week.  . . . 

I find  it  an  extremely  good  game  and,  though,!  am  still  putridly 
bad  I played  on  Wednesday,  Thursday,  Friday  and  Saturday  last 
week.  [In  the  previous  term  he  had  been  in  the  finals  of  College 
Fives,  j 

I have  enjoyed  Richard  Fever  el  immensely.  It  is  my  first 
Meredith  and  I find  it  quite  different  from  anything  I have  ever 
read.  When  I am  reading  it  I get  absorbed  in  a way  that  is  not 
very  usual  with  me.  Is  Meredith  one  of  those  dreadful  people 
who  think  that  a happy  ending  is  inartistic  ? 

X is  as  usual.  We  have  not  yet  succeeded  in 'probing  the  depths 
of  his  ignorance.  It  must,  I think,  be  bottomless. 

...  For  Sunday  private  my  tutor  read  us  Macaulay’s  descrip- 
tion of  the  siege  of  Londonderry.  The  political  consequences  of  its 
fall  would  have  been  much  the  same  as  those  that  would  have  followed 
the  fall  of  Ladysmith.  The  siege  only  lasted  about  half  as  long  as 
the  siege  of  Mafeking,  but  the  extremities  to  which  they  were  reduced 
were  terrible. 

I expect  that  we  shall  find  that  Mafeking  has  been  very  much 
worse  than  we  liave  heard,  . . . 


J,  M.  hey7ies  to  D).  J,  J\f.  Keynes^  syth  Alay  iy(X) 

I went  to  Queen’s  Eyot  Club  for  the  first  time  on  '1  hursday  and 
again  yesteiday.  It  is  most  excellent  and  I have  conic  to  think  now, 
not  a bit  too  far.  We  got  our  tea  there,  eggs,  bread  and  butter  and 
marmalade  for  a very  small  price,  and  there  arc  innumerable  other 
varieties  of  refreshment.  They  will  eventually  make  it  quite  a 
palatial  and  a large  permanent  building,  bathing  and  every  kind 
of  convenience.  It  is  a great  thing  to  have  an  objective  in  one’s 
rowing,  and  the  appetite  you,  of  course,  acquire  on  the  way.  . . . 
I forgot  to  mention  one  incident  of  Mafeking  Day  in  my  last  letter. 
The  College  subscribed  to  send  a telegram  of  congratulation  to  B-P, 
and  it  was  couched  in  the  following  terms: — Togati  Etonienses 
Obsessis  Gratulantur.  Later  in  the  day  an  official  ^ document 
was  received  saying  that  no  cypher  was  allowed.  . . . I'his  week 
I have  read  dc  Quincey’s  Confessions,  I have  enjoyed  them 
so  much  that  I^  think  1 shall  read  another  volume^  of  his 
works. 


AET  17] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


29 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes ^ 24th  June  igoo 

...  I began  the  Ring  and  the  Book  to-day  and  have  read 
about  half  the  first  volume.  It  goes  without  saying  that  I like  it 
immensely.  . . . 

J,  AI.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  JST,  Keynes^  ist  July  igoo 

...  I have  finished  the  second  volume  of  The  Ring  and  the  Book. 
It  is  a grand  poem. 

Maynard’s  love  of  good  literature  was  sustained  through  life. 
During  the  last  hectic  years  of  his  great  American  negotiations, 
he  read  himself  to  sleep  on  Elizabethan  authors.  He  was  fond 
of  poetry  and  of  reading  it  aloud,  which  he  did  with  feeling. 
I remember  coming  into  his  rooms  in  the  autumn  of  1922,  to  find 
that  he  was  reading  aloud  The  Waste  Land  by  T.  S.  Eliot,  a poet 
of  whom  I had  so  far  not  heard.  Ilis  reading  was  intelligent  and 
moving,  and  served  to  win  one's  admiration  for  this  strange  new 
forfti  of  expression. 

Maynard's  mind  jumped  very  quickly  from  thing  to  thing ; 
the  emotion  of  a moment  before  could  be  banished  completely. 
There  was  some  special  quality  in  his  constitution  which  allowed 
him  to  terminate  one  phase  of  feeling  abruptly  and  redirect  his 
mind  to  something  else.  This  quality  may  be  a key  to  his  success 
in  life.  He  had  a heart,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  be  a 
great  man.  But  by  reverting  to  an  intellectual  interest  he  could 
always  terminate  his  heartache  quickly. 

And  so  we  need  not  think  that  the  schoolboy’s  pleasure  in 
poetry  was  any  less  genuine  because,  all  at  once,  the  future 
statistician  comes  to  the  fore.  The  letter  proceeds  to  give  us 
some  interesting  information. 

Ibid, 

...  I made  some  investigations  the  other  day  about  the  com- 
parative lengths  of  some  long  poems.  'J'his  was  .*imong  the  longest, 
but  I was  surprised  at  the  results  on  the  whole. 

The  longest  is  W.  Morris’s  Earthly  Paradise.,  which  comes  approxi- 
mately to  40,000  lines. 

Then  Spenser’s  Faery  Qyeen  (35,632),  then  in  order.  The  Ring 
and  the  Book  (21,116),  Canterbury  Tales  (17,386),  The  Iliad  (15,692), 
Dantj’s  Divwe  Comedy  (including  Paradise,  Purgatory,  and  the 
Inferno)  (14,408),  Hudibras  (11,445),  Paradise  Lost  (10,665)  and  the 


30  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [looo 

the  Aeneid  (9,896).  I did  not  look  at  the  Odyssey.  I should  put  it 
down  at  eleven  or  twelve  thousand. 

This  term  he  won  the  Senior  Mathematical  Prize. 

We  have  seen  that  from  the  beginning  he  established  good 
relations  with  his  contemporaries.  He  gained  universal  respect, 
and  also  affection.  Men  of  genius  or  of  great  brains  or  in  other 
ways  out  of  the  ordinary  are  often  ragged  at  their  public  school  — 
even  at  Eton  ! There  was  nol  the  slightest  hint  of  anything  of  this 
sort  in  Maynard’s  < ase. 

Although  his  eminence  was  recognised,  his  exceptional  matur- 
ity must  have  made  him  seem  a little  unusual  to  the  schoolboys ; 
and  so  at  the  end  of  his  third  year,  he  did  not  come  out  first  in  the 
esteem  of  those  immediatelv  above  him. 


J.  M.  Kevus  io  D).  J.  jV'.  Anv/r,  2()lh  July  igoo 

. . , the  elections  to  C4oUege  Pop  took  place  List  night  and  the 
only  person  in  our  election  to  get  in  was  Dundas.  I regarded  him 
as  almost  certain  all  the  time. 

There  are  two  vacMiicies  left  to  he  filled  up  next  half. 

Robert  Hamilton  (Robin)  Duiidas  w\is  one  of  his  greatest 
school  friends.  His  Eton  friendships  w^'ie  fervent  and  whole- 
hearted. Within  his  own  election  there  was  a group  of  boys  who 
were  usually  in  the  same  form  and  had  many  intcTests  in  common. 
Their  names  occur  over  and  over  again  in  the  letters. 

Robin  Dundas  was  a curious  blend  of  Scottish  puritanism  and 
modern  emancipation,  fie  ww  often  daring  in  talk,  but  one 
was  conscious  of  a background  of  strict  principle.  His  style  of 
speaking  and  writing  was  lapidary  and  terse  in  the  highest  degree. 
He  could  single  out  one  epithet,  telling  and  often  funny,  which 
admirably  summarised  the  complex  character  of  a friend.  He 
corresponded  largely  by  post-card,  partly  out  of  an  ingiained  habit 
of  Scottish  carefulness,  but  also  because  he  could  say  things  on 
a post-card  for  which  others  would  require  four  pages.  Since  he 
has  published  very  little,  it  may  be  permitted  to  place  on  record 
one  instance  of  the  literary  power  of  this  remarkable 'friend  of 
Maynard’s  school-days.  He  had  to  announce  in  an  after-dinner 
speech  the  death  of  two  Christ  Church  men  by  an  accident,  and 
then  two  suicides.  • 


AET  17]  HOME  AND  ETON  31 

Extract  from  Speech  at  Ceruois'  Dinner;  Christ  Churchy  December  1Q22 

Those  two  were  cut  ofT  by  an  accident  of  the  body ; and  then 
there  were  another  two  who  perished  by  an  accident  of  the  mind. 
The  young  of  this  generation  arc  apt  to  (‘xpeci  much  of  life,  and  to 
be  impatient  if  what  she  has  to  offer  falls  short  of  their  hopes ; these 
carried  their  impatience  into  action. 

Dundas  believed  in  blunt  speaking;  indeed  it  is  rather 
amusing  to  think  of  these  two  great  past-in*istcrs  in  the  art  of 
rudeness  as  cronies  together  at  school.  Were  they  armed  against 
each  other's  shafts  ? They  had  very  dillcrt'nt  styles  of  rudeness. 
I’hcre  w<is  something  freezing  and  terrible  alx>ut  Maynard’s ; it 
was  employed  selectively  against  victims  deserving  punishment ; 
and  it  punished.  It  was  not  usually  meant  to  lie  unforgivable, 
but  was  oft(;n  not  forgiven. 

Dundas's  rudenesses  were  more  fie(|uent,  and  sometimes 
served,  curiously  enough,  as  a bridge'  to  friendship.  A new 
acquaintance,  finding  himself  suddenh  buffeted  by  apparent 
insults,  would  encounter  the  regard  of  kindly  gre)-blue  eyes  in  a 
finely  chisf'lled  Roman  face.  I’hey  seemed  to  be  well-intentioned 
and  to  plead  : “ J am  only  telling  \uu  the  truth  ; after  all,  that 
is  the  best  mode  of  intercourse;  why  beat  about  the  bush?'* 
His  manifest  friendliness  would  lead  to  quick  forgiveness ; but  to 
have  forgiven  a man  is  already  to  be  in  an  emcaional  relationship 
with  him,  much  more  intimate  than  can  usually  be  achieved  by 
the  normal  small  talk  of  first  meetings. 

These  two  did  not  maintain  close  contacts  in  later  life.  Dundas 
went  to  Oxford,  as  a Si  holar  of  New  College,  and  has  spent  his 
life  as  a tutor  in  Greek  History  at  Christ  Church.  He  has  been  for 
many  years  a pillar  of  that  college,  succeeding  by  his  industry  and 
shrewd  insight  in  getting  to  know  far  more  of  the  characters  and 
problems  of  undergraduates,  whether  his  jiupils  or  not,  than  most 
dons  can  achieve. 

Best  friend  of  all  w’as  Bernard  Swithinbank.  Tall  and  hand- 
some, he  had  finely  moulded  fe«iturcs,  well  covered  in  youth, 
later  revealed  in  their  full  dignity  as  he  grew  leaner.  He  was  an 
elegant,  even  exquisite,  schoolboy;  not  voluble  in  talk  and  of 
quiet  habit  of  mind,  he  cho^^c  his  words  with  precision  and  enun- 
ciated them  caressingly,  so  that  what  he  said  about  books  or  life 
seemed  to  have  a quality  of  mellow^  and  easy  judgment.  He  had 
independence  of  mind  and  character,  taking,  nothing  on  trust. 


32  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [i«»oo 

His  unassuming  and  gentle  self-confidence  diffused  an  atmosphere 
in  which  the  schoolboys  felt  themselves  already  arbiters  of  taste. 
To  Maynard’s  boyish  enthusiasm  he  seemed  a veritable  king  of 
men. 

Throughout  his  life  the  claims  of  friendship  came  first  with 
Maynard.  When  Swithinbank  went  to  Balliol  College,  Oxford, 
Maynard  made  tremendous  attempts,  by  letter  and  interchange 
of  visits,  to  keep  alive  their  communion  of  soul.  He  introduced 
Swithinbank  to  his  new  friends  at  Cambridge.  When  finally  in 
1908  Swithinbank  decided  to  take  service  in  Burma  (where  he 
had  a distinguished  career,  rising  to  be  Commissioner  of  the  Pegu 
Division,  1933-42,  and  afterwards  adviser  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  in  London),  Maynard  regarded  the  prospective  separation 
as  a calamity.  Lylton  Strachey  thought  fit  to  send  a telegram  to 
him  in  the  Orkneys  to  convey  the  doleful  news.  Maynard  took 
prompt  action : 


Telegiam  J)om  J.  AL  Keyim  to  B.  Swithinbanky  y.iy  a.m.  siind 
September  igo8 

My  dear  Swithinbank.  Great  Congratulations. * 1 do  hope  this 
quite  alters  your  decision.  Please  stay  in  England.  You  will  I am 
sure  1 egret  it  otherwise.  Perhaps  this  telegram  unnecessary  but 
please  stay  in  England,  fhere  is  no  doubt  you  ought  to  and  decision 
is  irrevocable.  Please  telegraph  to  me.  Keynes. 


Telegiam  fwm  B,  Svcilkinbank  to  J.  M,  Keyne^iy  11  y a.m.  2:ind 
September  lyoS 

Sorry  but  I do  leall)  want  lo  go  to  India  if  medical  allows. 
Really  want  to  fixedly  but  if  I fail  will  wire.  Swithinbank. 


lelegram /torn  J,  AL  Keynes  to  B,  Swithifibank,  y p.m.  22nd  September 
iyu8 

You  see  evident  horrors  of  England  too  clearly  but  greater 
horrors  of  India  are  for  you  in  a mist.  Although  doctors  pass  you 
I doubt  your  health  and  strength  standing  it.  Forgive  iipportunily. 
Do  stay.  I am  sure  you  can  be  happy  in  England. 

> He  was  elected  fourth  in  tlie  Civil  Service  Examination,  which  gave  him  the 
opportunity  to  opt  for  th ; Home  C^ivil  Service. 


AET.  17]  HOME  AND  ETON  33 

Telegram  from  B.  Swithinbank  to  J.  M.  Kejnes^  g,d  p.m.  2i^nd  September 
1908 

Please  don’t  trouble  about  me  any  more.  1 am  decided. 

It  is  nice  to  have  friends  who  really  want  you.  That  these  tele- 
grams still  exist,  kept  by  the  two  friends  independently  of  one 
another,  is  a tribute  to  an  Eton  friendship. 

Then  there  was  Dillwyn  Knox,  the  most  brilliant  of  a family 
of  brilliant  brothers.*  A superb  classical  scholar,  he  was  head  of 
his  election  to  Eton  at  the  age  of  twelve,  and  afterwards  scholar 
and  then  Fellow  of  King’s  College,  Cambridge  In  this  case 
Maynard  was  able  to  maintain  his  friendship  at  King’s.  Dillwyn 
was  a loyal  and  true  friend.  Lean  and  light  of  build,  he  achieved 
his  scholastic  success  so  easily,  that  his  mind  had  plenty  of  leisure 
for  pleasant*  nothings.  Often  rotting  and  ragging  about,  with  a 
touch  of  inconsequence,  always  with  a new  limerick,  witty  and 
sharp,  he  could  be  relied  on  to  amuse  and  charm,  and  to  prick  any 
bubble  of  pomposity  in  friend  or  foe.  His  first-rate  brains  were 
enlisted  in  his  country’s  intelligence  service  in  the  First  ^Vorld  War 
and  afterwards,  to  the  benefit  of  the  nation,  but  to  the  detriment 
of  literature  and  scholarship. 

Granville  Hamilton  (afterwards  Proby),  good-looking  and 
charming,  was  of  aristocratic  connections.  Maynard  had  an 
especially  warm  spot  for  him.  In  later  life  he  was  Clerk  to  the 
House  of  Lords  for  thirty  years,  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Huntingdon- 
shire and  an  antiquary  of  repute.  Gerard  Mackworth  Young  was 
a boy  of  parts  and  presence,  a scholar  and  of  the  world.  He  also 
went  on  to  King’s,  and  subsequently  achieved  two  distinguished 
careers,  one  in  the  Indian  Civil  Service  (Secretary,  Army  Depart- 
ment, 1926-32)  and  one  as  a writer  on  antiquities  and  Director 
of  the  British  School  at  Athens  (1936-46).  By  a coincidence  he 
was  concerned  at  Athens  with  the  publication  of  the  remains  ol 
Humfry  Payne,  one  of  the  best  arc  hacologists  of  his  generation 
and  pupil  of  Robin  Dundas.  Thomas  Balstoii,  elected  second  to 
Knox  at  Eton,  was  of  the  group,  afterwards  a distinguished 
writer  and  a publisher.  Among  these  the  tone  was  secular ; but 

* Monsigi\or  Ronald  (Ronnie)  Knox,  author  of  Studies  in  the  Literature  of  Sherlock 
Holmes  (republished  in  Essays  in  Satire.  Sh<*ed  and  Ward,  1933),  and  of  moio 
serious  work,  wittiest  President  of  the  Oxford  Union  within  living  memory,  translator 
of  the  Vtdgatei  E.  V.  Knox  (Evoe),  editor  oi Punch ; the  Re\d.  Wilfred  Knox,  Fellow 
of  the  Brit^  Academy,  Fellow  of  Pembroke  College,  CambrijJge,  author  of  important 
contributions  on  Hellenistic  Judaism  and  early  Christianity. 


D 


34  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1900 

religion  was  represented  by  R.  H.  Lightfoot,  who  became  a very 
learned  divine  and  Professor  of  the  Exegesis  of  Holy  Scripture  at 
Oxford.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  remind  his  boy  friends  of  their 
common  human  frailties.  He  was  supported  by  J.  M.  Duncan, 
less  learned  in  theology,  but  severer  in  his  churchmanship,  and 
deeply  interested  in  ritual.  Then  there  was  W.  Hope-Jones,  who 
returned  to  Eton,  where  he  was  a beloved  house-master  and  tutor 
in  mathematics,  and  at  the  same  time  made  learned  contributions 
in  one  of  Maynard’s  fields  of  interest  — statistical  methods  in 
biology.  Among  the  next  election  Maynard  was  especially  fond 
of  Daniel  Macmillan,  publisher  of  this  volume,  who  followed 
Swithinbank  to  Balliol. 

These  urbane  and  scholarly  young  men  were  impressed  from 
the  beginning  by  Maynard’s  great  ability  and  his  touch  of  genius  ; 
as  his  reading  progressed  he  began  to  acquire  a reputation  of 
omniscience.  Were  they  a little  frightened  of  him?  It  does  not 
seem  so.  After  all,  they  were  redoubtable  people  themselves. 
And  he  was  essentially  companionable,  as  Dr.  Keynes  had 
recorded ; he  was  ready  to  appreciate  all  forms  of  fun  and  was 
himself  an  unfailing  fount  of  amusement.  Wer^his  opinions  ill- 
regarded  ? He  was,  of  course,  a Liberal,  but  so  were  some  of  the 
others ; it  does  not  appear  that  his  political  views  were  extreme. 
Religion  was  more  da^igerous  ground.  Indifference  was  no  doubt 
then  prevalent ; but  the  serious-minded  Christians  soon  grasped 
that  his  free-thinking  went  deeper. 

Sayings  of  his  arc  remembered.  Duncan  having  affirmed  that 
Dissenters  could  by  no  means  gain  access  to  Heaven,  Maynard 
was  bound,  if  only  having  regard  to  his  Congrcgationalist  up- 
bringing, to  take  up  the  challenge.  Duncan  had  finally  to  suc- 
cumb to  his  reasonings. 

Duncan:  “Anyhow  they  won’t  be  admitted  to  our  kind  of 
Hca^cn.” 

Keynes:  “ Yes,  but  what  we  want  to  know  is  whether  they 
will  be  admitted  to  our  kind  of  Hell.” 

Or  again : “ I wish  I could  be  the  Angel  of  Death.  I know  a 
good  many  people  I should  gladly  put  out  of  the  way.” 

Despite  the  glories  of  her  seventeenth-century  pulpit,  the 
Church  of  England  has  for  a long  time  sadly  neglected  the  art 
of  preaching.  If  Maynard  had  doubts,  what  he  heard  at  Eton 
was  not  likely  to  Ifead  him  back  to  the  fold. 


AET.  17]  HOME  AND  ETON  35 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  jV.  Keynes^  12th  November  j8gg 

. . . This  morning  I have  heard  a sermon  which,  putting  my 
hand  on  my  heart  and  without  hesitation,  I can  call  the  worst  I 
have  ever  had  inflicted  upon  me.  Sermons  may  be  dull,  but  you 
can  sleep ; sermons  may  be  old,  but  you  can  sleep  ; but  this  — there 
is  no  parliamentary  language  in  which  I can  express  my  opinion  of  it. 

I sat  and  writhed  for  twenty-five  minutes.  . . . 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  4th  Alaxh  jgoo 

. . . We  had  inflicted  on  us  this  morning  another  old  reprobate 
in  the  person  of  the  Revd.  - - -.  It  was  a revolting  performance 
and  an  insult  to  the  congregation.  It  is  enough  to  make  one  think 
that  the  Church  is  the  refuge  for  those  who  cannot  preach. 

They  ought  at  least  to  make  him  an  archdeacon  at  once.  He 
has  got  all  the  qualifications.  . . . 

J.  M.  K 'eynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  lyth  Febumy  igoi 

. . . This  morning  an  atrocity  was  perpetrated  in  the  pulpit,  a 
revolting  <ind  merciless  atrocity  in  a loud  voice.  Tlic  criminal  was 
the  Revd.  - - [This  preadiei  was  subsequently  elevated  to  a 
bishopric  which  he  held  for  a great  many  years.] 

But  Maynard  was  not  blind  to  true  merit.  Those  who  remember 
the  beautiful  sermons  of  Robert  Hugh  Benson,  later  converted  to 
the  Church  of  Rome,  will  recognise  Maynard’s  diserimination. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Du  J.  N.  K^yms,  2yth  Febximy  igoi 

. . . Last  Sunday  w’C  had  an  extremely  good  sermon  from 
Benson’s  youngest  brother.  He  is  a real  orator.  He  has  joined  some 
brotherhood  in  which  one  gives  up  one’s  earthly  possessions  and  goes 
about  preaching.  I thought  that  he  would  preach  well  as  &oon  as 
I saw  that -he  had  not  brushed  his  nair.  . . . 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  D).  J.  jV.  Keynes,  loth  Maxh  igoi 

I suppose  that  you  have  seen  that  Ford  * has  got  the  Headmaster- 
ship  of  Rep  ton ; he  will,  1 think,  be  a great  loss  to  us.  He  is 
quite  the  best  preacher  we  have  and  has  been  of  late  one  of  the  most 
conspicuous  figures  among  the  masters.  . . . 

* Later  Head  Master  of  Harrow. 


36  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1900 

Pretty  as  a child,  Maynard  could  not  have  been  called  hand-* 
some  at  Eton.  He  always  had  an  interesting  face.  The  lips  were 
thick.  If  one  added  the  inevitable  epithet  “ sensual  ”,  that  would 
not  convey  quite  the  right  impression,  for  sensual  lips  are  lazy 
lips.  His  were  highly  sensitive  and  expressive.  They  came  into 
play  to  an  unusual  extent  when  he  spoke,  rounding  and  modulat- 
ing the  words  and  seeming  to  give  them  a thoughtful  emphasis. 
He  grew  a small  moustache,  which  he  retained  through  life.  His 
large  dark-blue  eyes  were  very  beautiful  — steady,  direct  and 
full  of  kindness  and  wisdom. 

These  features  were  but  the  vehicle  for  the  constant  play  of 
expression,  animated  and  intelligent,  and  above  all  there  was  his 
sense  of  fun,  seldom  absent  for  long.  Then  at  once  his  face  became 
irradiated.  He  had  a broad  smile,  the  eyes  sparkled  and  the 
eyebrows  arched  upwards.  Tattle  wrinkles  at  the  corners  of  his 
eyes  appeared.  Seldom  can  a face  have  expressed  a sense  of  the 
ridiculous  so  completely;  and  as  he  went  about  the  world,  he 
was,  luckily  for  his  friends,  always  finding  matters  worthy  of 
ridicule.  But  there  was  nothing  censorious  or  caustic  about  his 
facial  comment ; it  was  all  pure  gaiety  and  impishness.  Certainly 
he  had  a very  charming  and  interesting  face.  Strangers  noticed  it 
in  a crowd.  He  was  quite  unlike  anyone  else.  It  was  sympathetic, 
communicative,  winning. 

He  was  tall ; at  school  he  was  thin,  but  filled  out  later.  He 
sometimes  walked  with  a slight  stoop.  His  motions  of  body  were 
animated.  He  moved  quickly  about  the  room,  tidying  or  adjust- 
ing or  dispatching  business  in  hand  with  speed.  But  then  he  liked 
to  settle  down  on  the  sofa  with  his  long  legs  outstretched,  and  his 
attitude  became  one  of  complete  repose.  There  must  be  no 
discomfort  that  might  impede  the  interchange  of  ideas,  which  was, 
after  all,  the  main  pleasure,  perhaps  the  main  object,  in  life. 
How  would  he  have  described  his  own  hands  ? They  were  smooth 
and  the  fingers  long  and  delicate.  He  had  a habit  of  tucking  each 
hand  into  the  sleeve  of  the  arm  opposite,  so  that  thev  became 
invisible.  Thus  he  completed  the  sense  of  repose,  like  a cat  with 
her  paws  tucked  up  under  her. 

3 

The  summer  of  1900  found  the  family  at  Tintagel  again. 
Maynard  was  reading  Lecky’s  History  of  the  Eighteenth  Century^ 
which  had  a “ great  attraction  for  him  ”,  He  suffered*  from  an 


AET.  17J 


HOME  AND  ETON 


37 

attack  of  high  fever  and  later  from  a bad  knee,  which  was  deemed 
to  be  due  to  it. 

In  the  Michaelmas  Half  he  was  up  to  Luxmoore ; the  friends 
regarded  him  as  “ quite  the  nicest  master  ” they  had  been  up  to. 
At  the  same  timo  he  was  doing  European  History  from  1509  to 
1603  with  Marten.  Arguments  were  beginning  about  the  extent 
to  which  he  ought  to  specialise  in  mathematics.  Mr.  Hurst,  his 
mathematical  master,  wanted  as  much  of  his  time  as  possible, 
while  Mr.  Lubbock  pleaded  for  his  other  interests.  On  the  whole, 
Mr.  Lubbock,  aided  no  doubt  by  Maynard  himself,  seems  to  have 
got  the  better  of  it.  But  Hurst  was  jealous,  and  Maynard,  when 
doing  some  other  bits  of  work,  trembled  at  the  probable  dis- 
pleasure of  Hurst  when  he  should  get  to  know. 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  M,  Keynes^  21st  Odohc)  igoo 

I am  enjoying  all  my  work  now,  and  Lubbock  says  that  my  verses 
have  greatly  improved,  but  to  really  get  on  in  Classics  1 ought  now 
to  do  a lot  of  private  reading. 

It  would  he  very  pleasant  getting  through  one’s  favourite 
Classical  authors  in  that  way,  but  it  is  absolutely  impossible  as  well 
as  Mathematical  extras. 

Like  you,  I should  not  mind  thiiiy-six  houis  a day  and  fourteen 
days  a week,  etc.  etc.  ...” 

Games  meanwhile  w^ere  continuing. 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  Di,  J.  JV.  Keyiu^i^  i^lh  Otlobci  igoo 

I played  Wall  Game  ou  Monday  under  such  conditions  as  1 hope 
never  to  have  to  repeat. 

The  sun  was  blazing  and  the  day  more  than  reminiscent  of 
summer,  and  yet  we  went  and  played  a fairly  hard  Wall  Game. 
I have  never  felt  so  bad  in  my  life.  I was  of  course  dripping  with 
sweat,  but  it  was  the  absrbite  exhaustion  and  inability  to  breathe 
that  was  so  awful.  . . . 

On  the  next  day  1 played  in  Mixed  Wall  in  similar  weather 
conditions,  but  we  knew  what  we  were  in  for  and  played  slackly  so 
that  I got  nothing  worse  than  horribly  hot. 

He  got  some  boils  on  his  knee,  perhaps  connected  with  his 
holiday  ailment,  recovered,  played  another  Wall  Game,  and  then 
got  boils  on  his  other  knee.  The  doctor  said  \hat  his  blood  was 


38  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1901 

not  in  good  condition,  but  did  not  think  him  unfit  to  carry  on 
with  the  Wall  Game,  and  by  the  end  of  term  he  had  won  his 
College  colours.  His  mother  has  since  been  somewhat  doubtful 
of  that  doctor's  verdict,  and  felt  that  the  terrific  strains  of  this 
formidable  game  may  have  done  permanent  mjury  and  been  a 
remote  cause  of  his  later  heart  troubles,  which  were  to  prove 
fatal. 

He  went  home  for  Long  Leave. 


Extract  fiom  Diaiy  of  Dr,  J.  N.  Keynes^  i8ih  November  igoo 

Much  enjoy  having  Maynard  with  us  — in  capital  spirits  bright 
and  intelligent  as  he  always  is.  Mr.  Lubbock  came  up  for  the  Greek 
play  — says  he  considers  ^^aynard  safe  for  a first  class  in  Classics  if 
he  reads  Classics.  He  evidently  thinks  very  highly  of  the  child. 

If  Maynard's  classics  were  good,  so  also  was  his  history.  He 
was  first  in  his  division.  In  the  later  part  of  this  half,  he  competed 
for  the  Richards  English  Essay  Prize.  The  subject  was  given  out 
a couple  of  weeks  in  advance.  On  this  occasion  it  was  the  character 
of  the  Stuarts.  I cannot  say  that  it  is  a very  congenial  subject.” 
On  25th  November  an  essay  on  it  had  to  be  written  in  the  School 
Library  between  the  hours  of  9.0  and  12.0,  Maynard  covered 
twenty-two  pages ; his  handwriting  was  small.  He  won  the 
prize. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Lent  Half,  Maynard  was  elected  to 
College  Pop. 


J,  M,  Keynes  to  Mrs,  J.  N Keynes,  syth  January  jgoi 

Last  night  I was  elected  to  College  Pop  and  next  Saturday  I 
make  my  maiden  speech  that  “ Women  are  more  fitted  to  rule  than 
men  ”. 

I have  just  "his  morning  received  the  rules  to  put  up  in  my 
room  framed  in  purple  riband.  . . . We  are,  I believe,  to  have  a 
general  post  in  the  way  of  food  in  Hall  under  the  auspices  of  the  new 
Bursar. 

Irish  stew  and  veal  that  is  tottering  on  to  the  verge  of  beef  are 
to  be  among  our  weekly  items. 

There  is  also  talk  of  a permanent  early  breakfast  such  as  we 
have  during  trials,  a hot  roll  and  butter  and  tea  for  earl^  school. 
This  will  be  a redl  boon.  My  first  attempt  at  making  mustard  has 


AET.  17] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


39 

been  too  solid ; I shall  probably  go  to  the  other  extreme  next 
time.  . . . 

I am  going  to  take  the  Daily  Mail  this  half.  This  is  a great 
sacrifice  of  Principle  to  Pocket. 

He  was  playing  fiVes  “ almost  every  day 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  26th  February  igor 

I was  given  my  Lower  Boats  yesterday  and  have  got  an  oar  in 
the  St.  George.  . . , I’his  is  a great  surprise:  1 thought  1 might 
have  had  some  slight  chance  of  getting  them  next  4th  June,  but  not 
the  smallest  hope  of  getting  them  this  half 

The  colour  is  white  with  narrow  magenta  strij'cs. 

The  economiser  and  the  economist  both  appear  in  the  following 
letter : 


J.  Af.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  Af.  ^rd  Afaicli  jgoi 

Last  niglit  I put  up  a motion  in  Privaic  Business  in  College  Pop 
but  was  defeated  by  one  vote.  The  fac  Is  were  these  : a fine  of  fid. 
is  exacted  for  every  article  left  in  Reading  Room  after  9.30.  1 left 
a pair  of  fives  gloves  and  a double  fine  of  is.  was  demanded  of  me. 
1 held  that  a pair  of  fives  gloves  only  constituted  one  article  within 
the  meaning  of  the  I.aw.  I wms  surprised  at  so  nearly  winning  as  it 
is  almost  impossible  to  make  the  House  pass  anything  w'hich  w'ill 
diminish  its  revenue  from  fines.  Personally  I don’t  think  it  good 
policy  to  make  fines  a source  of  revenue ; it  is  an  extremely  vexatious 
form  of  indirect  taxation  and  one  which  involves  considerable  trouble 
in  collection.  Quite  a large  amount  of  money  is  obtained  in  this  way, 
but  I should  prefer  a fixed  subscription  in  lieu  of  fines. 

Towards  the  end  of  this  half  it  appeared  that  rowing,  despite 
his  enthusiasm,  was  getting  too  muc  b of  a good  thing.  The  matter 
was  happily  solved  in  the  following  half 


J.  Ad.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes.  12th  Aiay  igoi 

This  afternoon  I was  given  an  oar  in  Monarch  by  the  Captain 
of  the  Boats.  This  was  at  my  own  request  as  I had  had  it  conveyed 
to  him  that  I wanted  it.  It  is  nominally  the  first  boat  on  the  river, 
but  it  is  generally  recognised  as  the  home  of  bad  odrs.  Apart,  however, 


40  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1901 

from  slight  opprobrium  it  is  all  bliss.  One  has  all  the  advantages  of 
wet  bobbing  without  any  of  its  disadvantages. 

One  has  all  the  privileges  of  a member  of  Upper  Boats^  sliding 
seats,  bathing  off  Boveney,  etc.,  and  no  races.  One  behaves  exactly  as 
one  would  in  Lower  Boats  except  that  one  has  no  bumping  races. 
These  are  never  things  to  look  forward  to,  and  it  is  particularly 
fortunate  to  escape  them  as  they  immediately  precede  the  Tomline, 
f"Ihe  principal  Mathematical  Prize  at  Eton.] 

One,  in  fact, — to  begin  one  more  sentence  with  “ one  — buys 
cultured  ease  by  giving  up  ambition. 

There  are  three  other  Collegers  in  the  Ark^  as  it  is  familiarly 
called:  Gaselee,  who  got  it  at  his  own  request  two  years  ago; 
Mavrogordalo ; and  Olphert,  who  has  got  it  at  his  own  request  this 
year. 

...  By  the  way,  1 have  got  the  Holiday  Task  Prize.  So  has 
Dundas  in  the  division  below;  he  spent  the  holidays  reading  it 
through  carefully  three  times. 

He  won  the  Tomline,  getting  437  out  of  620  marks,  the  next 
man  with  336.  Dilly  Knox,  although  primarily  a classic,  and  a 
very  outstanding  classic,  was  in  for  it. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  M.  Keynes^  gth  June  igoj 

Knox  shows  his  work  up  in  a most  loathsomely  untidy,  unintel- 
ligible, illegible  condition.  . . . 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  jV.  Keynes^  iglk  June  igor 

I am  most  surprised  that  Knox  is  only  fourth ; I am  sure  that  he 
really  has  more  mathematical  ability  than  Bailey  or  Jones.  These 
three  were  very  close  together  and  Knox  seems  to  have  been  undone 
by  his  mechanics  and  his  want  of  lucidity ; especially,  I think,  the 
latter.  He  has  got  one  of  the  most  confused  brains  I have  ever 
come  across.  Even  in  conversation  he  is  wholly  incapable  of  express- 
ing the  meaning  he  intends  to  convey.  In  addition  to  this  he  is 
quite  abnormally  untidy  in  his  work  and  always  forgets  to  write 
down  the  most  necessary  steps. 

This  is  an  interesting  commentary  on  one  of  England’s  most 
illustrious  “ intelligence  experts  There  is  corroboration  for  it. 
Knox’s  ideas  came  crowding  into  his  mind  in  an  untidy  and 
confused  jumble  — all  was  seemingly  chaos ; in  a Cambridge 
court  he  might  be  %cen  to  pause  midway  on  his  course,  and  it  was 


AKT.  l8] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


41 

well  known  that  his  train  of  thinking  had  then  become  so  confused 
that  he  did  not  know  where  he  was  or  what  he  was  doing.  He 
remained  stuck  for  a long  time  until  he  had  sorted  matters  out 
with  himself.  Perhaps  it  was  precisely  this  shower  of  irrelevant 
ideas  impinging  on  a brain  of  the  very  highest  quality  that  pro- 
duced such  successful  results. 

J,  M,  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  jV.  Keynes^  i6th  June  igoi 

Hawtrey,*  as  perhaps  you  saw,  was  eighteenth  in  the  Mathe- 
matical Tripos.  Dyer  — whose  pupil  he  was  — is  very  disappointed 
and  thinks  he  ought  to  have  taken  a very  high  place,  and  Hurst  holds 
him  up  before  me  as  a dreadful  example  of  a person  who  has  tried 
to  do  too  many  things. 

Maynard  added  that  he  thought  that  Hurst  was  wrong  in  holding 
that  Hawtrey  had  “ lost  his  soul  in  knowing  something  besides 
Mathematics 

There  was  an  institution  at  Eton  called  “ Private  Business  ”, 
at  which  tutors  gave  some  special  instruction,  rather  in  the 
university  manner,  to  two  or  three  pupils.  There  were  also 
Sunday  Privates  This  half,  Mr.  Lubbock  chose  for  study 
some  translations  which  had  been  made  by  Dr.  J.  M.  Neale  of 
the  poetry  of  St.  Bernard  of  Cluny.  They  interested  Maynard 
greatly.  By  his  discriminating  choice,  Mr.  Lubbock  kindled  an 
interest  in  Maynard’s  mind,  which  was  to  occupy  much  of  his 
spare  time  during  the  remainder  of  his  spell  at  Eton  and  after- 
wards at  Cambridge. 

Extract  from  Diaty  of  D).J.  N.  Keynes,  22nd  Jun^  igoi 

Maynard  for  long  leave.  Mediaeval  Latin  poetry  is  now  one  of 
his  hobbies.2 

A year  latec  he  read  a paper  on  St.  Bernard  to  the  Literary  Society. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  J.  N.  Keynes,  2nd  May  igo2 

1 read  my  Bernard  tomorrow  night  at  8 p.m.  Ramsay  is  ill  — 
pneumonia  I believe  — and  Luxmoore  is  taking  the  Society  under 
his  wing  until  the  recovery  of  the  Ram. 

* This  is  Mr.  R.  G.  Hawtrey,  the  famous  economist. 

* ThaJ  autumn  he  was  set  to  write  a Latin  hymn  based  on  the  87th  Psalm  — as  a 
punishment  for  being  late  for  prayers ! So  he  wrote  two  versions. 


42  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1901 

When  I announced  my  subject  he  exclaimed  “ Oh  ! That  is  my 
subject.  I once  read  a paper  on  him.’*  Whereat  I was  greatly 
abashed  for  he  is  a rare  one  to  contradict.  Fortunately  he  had  mis- 
heard me.  It  was  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  that  his  paper  treated. 

In  an  obituary  notice  of  Stephen  Gasclec  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
British  Academy^  Mr.  Andrew  Gow  wrote : “ He  is  remembered 
...  to  have  read  a paper  to  a school  society  on  the  De  Contemptu 
Mundi  of  Bernard  of  Morlaix  ”.  Keynes  at  once  took  the  matter 
up  with  him.  It  was  he,  not  Gaselee,  who  had  read  the  paper.* 
At  the  end  of  this  half  Maynard  won  the  Ghamberlayne 
Prize,  consisting  of  £60  a year  for  four  years,  for  being  first  in 
the  Higher  Certificate  Examination.  He  was  first  in  mathematics, 
first  in  history,  and  first  in  the  English  essay. 


Mr.  Lubbock  to  Dr.  J.  jV*.  Keynes^  2nd  August  igoi 

I must  congratulate  you  once  again  on  your  boy’s  very  excel- 
lent performances ; and  nothing  about  them  is  so  admirable  as 
the  way  in  which  he  takes  them.  He  rates  prizes  at  their  proper 
worth,  is  glad  to  get  them,  but  fully  recognises  thaft  they  are  only  of 
secondary  consideration  and  importance.  I am  sure  he  will  go  far. 
He  seems  to  have  the  power  of  being  interested  in  everything  and  at 
the  same  time  he  seems  incapable  of  doing  anything  in  a dilettante 
manner.  . . . 

I confess  I was  fairly  dazzled  by  the  actual  result.  It  is  an  extra- 
ordinary performance.  He  certainly  does  command  success  to  an 
amazing  extent,  but  then  no  one  ever  deserved  it  better.  His  way  of 
accepting  it  is  characteristic ; just  as  quiet,  frank  and  modest  as  ever, 
enhancing  all  the  pleasure  his  successes  give  one.  I hope  he  has 
not  overdone  himself  and  am  glad  to  think  of  him  beginning  a com- 
plete rest.  . . . 

This  time  the  family  went  off  to  Switzerland. 

' Proceedings  of  the  British  Academy  { 1943),  p.  442.  Mr.  Gow  obtained  his  informa- 
tion from  a notice  by  Mr.  Ramsay  in  the  Cambridge  Review.  He  himself  drew  my 
attention  to  his  mistake,  and  added,  “ In  justice  to  myself  I may  say,  as  1 said  to 
Keynes,  that  when  I questioned  Ramsay,  he  professed  doubt  as  to  whether  Gaselee 
read  the  paper  when  at  school  or  as  an  old  boy.  I then  made  enquiry  from  the 
Minute  Book  of  the  Essay  Society  (which  proved  to  be  lost)  and  had  the  files  of  the 
Eton  College  Chronicle  searched  without  result;  and  therefore  wrote  n©t  * he  read 
but  * he  is  remembered  to  have  read  ’ — which  was  strictly  true.”  Mr.  Ramsay's 
inaccurate  recollection  was  no  doubt  due  to  his  illness.  Mr.  Gow  may  be  credited 
with  a scholar’s  care  in  this  matter,  although  whether  what  he  wrote  was  “ strictly 
true  ” must  depend  oq  the  philosophical  theory  of  the  meaning  of  ‘ihe  word 
“ remember  ”. 


AET.  1 8] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


43 

His  last  year  had  the  usual  pattern  of  those  of  successful 
schoolboys,  first  a blaze  of  triumphs,  and  then  a period  of  more 
leisure — aristocratic  dignity,  living  in  the  school  rather  as  in  one’s 
own  fine  country  house,  and  co-operating  with  one’s  friends  in 
running  it. 

In  a letter  to  his  father  he  gave  full  details  of  changes  in  the 
teaching  arrangements  at  school  and  proceeded : 


J.  A/.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  M.  Keynes^  22nd  September  igoi 

The  Old  Boy  ^ thinks  that  within  the  next  few  years  there  will  be 
considerable  state  re-ort*anization  in  secondary  education  and  that 
very  critical  examination  will  be  made  into  the  Public  School 
system.  So  he  is  endeavouring  to  bring  Eton  up  to  the  scratch.  He 
has  been  dilating  on  this  subject  botii  in  his  addies<?  to  sixth  form  and 
in  his  sermon  to-day. 

In  College  also  there  have  been  changes.  AVe  are  going  to  have 
hot  suppers  three  days  a week  and  the  old  liags  who  gather  up  the 
remnants  in  Hall  have  been  abolished.  I’hey  have,  I believe,  been 
given  almshouses  to  comfort  them. 

The  Bursar  is  going  tf)  meet  sixth  form  this  week  for  them  to 
suggest  any  further  changes  they  desire. 

This  half  he  still  had  before  him  the  task  of  winning  a scholar- 
ship at  the  university. 


J,  M,  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  N.  Keynes^  ^th  October  igoi 

Mr.  Marten  and  Hurst  have  within  the  last  two  days  been  urging 
me  to  go  up  for  Trinity  instead  of  King’s.  The  latter  wanted  to  know 
if  you  would  be  coming  to  Eton  any  lime  soon  as  he  would  like  to  see 
you  about  my  work.  1 promised  I w^ould  write  and  forward  his 
remarks. 

Hurst’s  case  is  briefly  this  : 

He  says  that  my  having  won  the  Chamberlayne  puts  a different 
complexion  on  matters  ; n * that  I have  that,  it  would  not  so  much 
matter  if  I only  got  a minor  or  exhibition  at  Trinity.  His  reason  for 
wishing  me  to  go  to  Trinity  is  that  he  thinks  that  Mathematics  are  at 
rather  a low  ebb  at  King’s,  They  do  chiefly  Classics  and  Science 
there.  Theic  arc  not  many  doing  Mathematics;  Berry  is  entirely 
pure  and  I should  have  to  go  elsewhere  for  my  applied.  I should  not 
get  a mathematical  atmosphere. 

* The  Head  Master. 


44  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [i^oi 

It  is  my  very  strong  impression  that  he  thinks  that  if  I go  to 
King’s  I shall  be  drawn  from  Mathematics  altogether.  Marten’s 
reason  was  but  a small  one ; he  thinks  that  my  History  might  count 
for  something  in  the  Trinity  general  paper. 

For  myself  I still  think  that  I would  rather  go^  to  King’s.  I have 
been  imagining  myself  going  there  for  some  time  and  it  is  difficult  to 
dispel  “ a fixed  idea  Besides,  Trinity  is  altogether  too  risky. 
Lubbock  has  written  to,  I think,  the  Provost  of  King’s,  to  find  out 
whether  the  Chamberlayne  is  tenable  with  an  Eton-King’s  scholar- 
ship. 

If  it  is  not,  that  is,  I admit,  a great  argument  in  favour  of 
Trinity.  . . . 

J,  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  13th  October  igoi 

Lubbock  has  definitely  heard  from  King’s  that  the  Certificate 
Scholarship  is  tenable  as  well  as  an  Eton  scholarship. 

In  the  debate  on  the  new  system  I spoke  and  voted  against  it.  It 
is  not  of  course  by  any  means  entirely  bad,  but  I think  there  is  a good 
deal  to  be  said  against  it.  Next  Saturday  I am  opening  a debate  in 
which  I am  to  abuse  the  Stuarts.  I put  up  ikis  debate  chiefly 
because  Hamilton  is  opposing.  It  is  a subject  upon  which  we  hold 
very  different  views  and  it  ought  to  make  an  amusing  debate.  1 took 
History  Extras  chiefly  because  it  does  not  really  take  much  time  and 
is  a pleasant  change  from  the  flood  of  Mathematics.  I rather  wish 
now  that  I had  taken  Pindar. 

Hurst  has  said  no  more  about  Trinity;  Lubbock  would  very 
much  prefer  me  to  go  to  King’s  and  I would  rather  go  there  myself ; 
so  don’t  you  think  wc  had  better  definitely  decide  on  the  latter? 
Hurst  still  does  not  want  me  even  to  take  the  Classical  papers.  He 
says  he  thinks  they  may  tire  me  for  the  Mathematics.  His  jealousy 
of  Classics  is  most  curious  and  interesting.  What  do  you  think  of 
Kipling’s  giotesque  effort  in  yesterday’s  Times?  What  is  “the 
imperishable  plinth  of  things  ” ? 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  20th  October  igoi 

On  Tuesday  as  you  have  seen  in  the  Chronicle ^ we  played  the 
masters ; I have  never  been  so  dissatisfied  at  the  result  of  a match 
and  I was  very  much  annoyed  at  our  being  beaten.  . . *. 

The  letter  in  the  Chronicle  was  by  Turner.*  It  was  most 
thoroughly  justified  ; in  both  the  Wall  Matches  one  or  two  of  the 


* Mr.  J.  R.  Turner,  later  Bursar  of  Westminster  School. 


AET.  isi  HOME  AND  ETON  45 

masters  had  disputed  every  decision  of  the  Umpire  in  a most  un- 
sportsmanlike manner,  and  it  was  high  time  that  the  matter  was 
publicly  called  attention  to.  . . . Yesterday  was  the  first  College 
Wall  Match  against  Browning’s  scratch.  After  a tremendous  game, 
College  succeeded  in  drawing;  I have  never  enjoyed  a match  so 
much.  I did  one  hold  which  I am  rather  proud  of  and  I am  suffi- 
ciently conceited  to  give  you  an  extract  from  the  account  of  the 
match  written  in  the  College  Wall  Book  by  the  Keeper : 

“ At  this  point  Keynes  got  well  set  and  backed  up  by  Olphert 
and  the  seconds  did  one  of  the  best  holds  I have  ever  seen,  remain- 
ing on  the  ball  about  eight  minutes.  ...  1 knew  he  was  a good 
holding  wall,  but  I did  not  know  that  he  could  perform  such 
prodigies  of  valour  against  such  gigantic  opponents.” 

The  walls  who  were  trying  to  get  me  off  weighed  13,  14  and  15  stone 
respectively,  while  the  three  College  walls  arc  in  the  aggregate  about 
32  stone. 

At  the  Shakespeare  Society  in  addition  to  the  Tempest^  we  have 
read  the  Merchant  and  tomorrow  we  begin  Twelfth  Night,  1 am  to 
be  Malvolio. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keyne^^  24th  November  igoi 

1 have  entered  myself  lor  ^^40  at  King’s  as  I want  to  go  there 
anyhow.  There  is  nowhere  else  worth  going  to  at  Cambridge 
which  comes  on  later.  And  I do  not  want  to  go  to  Oxford  at  any 
price. 

The  half  ended  in  triumphs,  which  came  crowding  in  on  two 
momentous  days.  He  was  elected  to  an  Eton  scholarship  at  King’s, 
“ in  Mathematics  and  Cla^^dcs  This  was  most  unusual.  Hurst's 
fears  had  been  unnecessary. 

The  Eton  Society,  commonly  known  as  Pop,  is  a self-elected 
body  of  boys,  who  have  responsibilities  in  the  school  corresponding 
roughly  to  those  of  school  monitors  or  school  prefects  in  other 
places.  The  qualities  which  are  lequired  for  election  are  those 
which  make  appeal  to  the  bovs  themselves  — athletics,  no  doubt, 
and  general  character ; social  standing  may  also  play  some  part. 
These  young  men  govern  the  school  for  the  time  — as  they  expect, 
many  of  them,  or  used  to  expect,  to  govern  the  country  later. 
They  are*  in  fact  our  bom  leaders,  people  of  substance  and 
character,  men  of  the  world.  One  or  two  of  the  “ book- worms 
in  College  may  be  among  the  chosen,  but  the  bias  is  somewhat 
against^them. 


46  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  i^th  December  igoi 

You  will  scarcely  believe  me,  I have  been  elected  to  Pop.  I had 
absolutely  no  idea  that  I had  the  smallest  chance,  and  did  not  even 
know  that  I was  put  up.  The  elections  were  held  to-day,  and  I was 
told  at  Hall.  Of  Collegers,  Olphert  has  also  got  ;n.  Yesterday  also 
was  rather  a red  letter  day  in  my  calendar : I got  the  first  news  [of 
his  scholarship]  from  a telegram  from  Dr.  James  which  I found 
awaiting  me  after  1 1 .0  school.  It  was  sent  off  fourteen  minutes  after 
yours,  but  arrived  five  minutes  st»oner.  It  was  very  good  of  him  to 
telegraph.  They  have  been  very  wily  in  King’s  in  choosing  those 
who  cannot  come  up  again.  Bailey,  Olphert  and  Young  will  all 
come  up  again  next  year;  Hamilton  is  quite  satisfied  with  £60 
and  is  still  faithful  to  King’s  after  a week  at  Oxford. ^ In  the  after- 
noon I played  for  College  at  the  Field  ^ and  after  the  match  got 
my  colours.  I have  got  it  loth,  higher  than  I have  been  before 
this  half. 

In  the  evening  College  supper  came  off.  We  had  a most  excellent 
dinner  and  I flatter  myself  that  I managed  the  arrangements  very 
satisfactorily.  ' 

Your  claret  was  very  especially  appreciated  as  being  extra- 
ordinarily good. 

We  had  soup,  fish,  pilaugh,  turkeys,  partridges,  plum  puddings, 
mince  pies,  pate  de  foie  gras,  dessert,  coffee,  with  claret,  moselle  and 
champagne. 

I asked  the  Head  for  leave  off  early  school  for  the  rest  of  the  half 
yesterday ; he  gave  it  like  a Iamb.” 

Among  his  successes,  that  in  the  Wall  Game  was  clearly  not 
regarded  as  a merely  trivial  matter.  The  following  letter,  written 
during  the  Christmas  holidays,  is  characteristic  for  the  fervent 
interest  taken  in  the  subject,  the  critical  analysis  of  the  essentials 
of  the  proposal  and  the  suggestion  of  an  alternative  remedy. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  R.  H,  DundaSy  igth  January  jgos 

You  seem  to  have  been  having  a \ery  giddy  time  at  your  god- 
mother’s; we  have  had  a comparatively  quiet  time  and  I with 
consummate  skill  have  got  off  all  (all  mind  you)  dances.  Oh,  what 
fair  round  lies  have  I told ! . . . A little  more  than  a week  ago  I 
heard  from  Turner  to  say  that  after  all  he  was  coming  up  to  King’s 
this  term.  For  God’s  sake  come  thou  and  do  likewise ; I add  as  an 


* But  in  the  end  he  went  to  Oxford. 


The  other  Eton  football  game. 


HOME  AND  ETON 


AET.  1 8] 


47 


appendix  to  this  letter  many  sound  and  weighty  arguments  all  of 
which  you  have  heard  before. 

If  you  want  to  drown  yourself  in  the  Bosphorus,  do  so  and  be 
damned  to  you. 

If  not,  I shall  think  very  poorly  of  you  if  you  cannot  overpersuade 
your  people  to  lei  you  come  into  residence  at  the  Royal  Foundation. 

I have  seen  a good  deal  of  the  King’s  people  this  week.  I played 
bridge  with  Gaselee  and  friends  a few  nights  ago  (and  won  a shilling) 
and  I play  again  this  week.  S.  G.  had  his  usual  equipment  of  port, 
cigars  and  brandy  and  sodas. 

George  Lyttelton  is  going  to  revise  the  Wall  rules. 

I have  seen  the  correspondence  on  the  subject,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  all  the  changes  arc  of  no  effect  save  that  concerning  hands 
(for  the  sake  of  which  the  whole  thing  is  doubtless  being  done) . 

I cannot  enter  into  details  now,  but  the  effect  of  the  new  rule  is 
practically  to  abolish  the  use  of  hands. 

To  this  1 am  strongly  opposed ; it  means  that  it  will  become  pos- 
sible for  a good  wall  to  sit  almost  indefinitcK  (unless  some  new  form 
of  ruffianism  such  as  slicking  * is  introduced).  1 told  Muggins  major 
the  suggested  rule  and  he  thought  that  he  peisonally  rould  sit  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  day  under  these  arrangements.  It  is  impossible 
to  make  the  Wall  Game  humane  and  one  suitable  for  the  newly 
shaved  and  tender  usher;  the  picsent  form  of  legalised  ruffianism 
is,  I think,  the  best  ( ondition  under  which  one  can  play  the  glorious 
game. 

I have  suggested  a compromise  that  knuckling  and  not  pushing 
be  abolished  ; this  would,  I think,  greatly  i educe  the  ruffianism  and 
at  the  same  time  k ave  the  game  fundamentally  the  same.  It  is  a very 
important  question,  but  more  of  this  anon.  . . . 

Prizes  at  Eton  took  the  form  of  books,  newdy  bound  in  calf. 
Maynard’s  succ  ession  of  awards  led  to  much  correspondence  with 
his  father  concerning  what  books  to  buy.  He  became  restive 
about  the  calf  bindings.  It  did  not  escape  his  lucid  mind  that, 
if  one  is  gathering  books  togethei  with  limited  resources,  the 
expenditure  of  a substantial  fraction  ou  new  calf  is  not  the  best 
way  of  building  up  a fine  lihi  aiy.  Mr.  Lubbock,  at  his  suggestion, 
persuaded  the  head  master  to  change  the  rules. 

In  the  market-place  at  Cambridge  a certain  Mr.  David, 
who  ultim4tely  became  famous,  had  a stall  in  which  were  to  be 
found  old  and  rare  books.  From  the  age  of  twelve  Maynard 
frequented  it. 


> Vi/,  kicking  oi  hacking. 


48  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  B.  Swithinbank^  31st  December  igot 

I bought  an  early  edition  (1820)  of  Wordsworth’s  Excursion 
yesterday  from  my  second-hand  bookseller  for  i/-.  It  is  a fine  large 
paper  edition.  I had  a long  talk  with  him  about  books,  a subject  he 
knows  a good  deal  about. 

It  appears  that  I gave  fully  what  it  was  worth  for  that  Byron. 

It  is  only  some  of  the  shorter  poems,  whose  first  edition  is  of  any 
real  value. 

I am  spending  a certain  amount  of  time  reading  Church  History 
for  the  Newcastle,  and  am  getting  a great  deal  of  interest  out  of  it. 
I have,  I think,  a certain  bent  towards  theology.  My  interest  in  the 
subject  delights  my  grandfather  who  is,  as  I think  I once  told  you, 
a Non-Conformist  clergyman. 

I have  also  been  studying  some  more  family  history  and  have 
written  a short  article  on  the  derivation  and  spelling  for  the  last 
thousand  years  of  the  name  Keynes. 

Maynard  continued  book  collecting  actively,  but  economically. 
He  sought  out  products  of  the  Aldine  and  Elzevir  presses  and  other 
early  printed  editions  of  the  classics,  not  usually  going  above  los., 
but  more  often  paying  much  less.  He  maint^ned  frequent  con- 
tacts with  David.  In  these  early  days  he  inserted  a number  in 
his  books,  indicating  the  order  of  purchase.  These  numbers  were 
only  placed  in  books  of  substantial  value  or  interest.  From  them 
we  learn  that  by  the  time  he  first  went  up  to  Cambridge  as  an 
undergraduate  in  October  1902  he  had  already  bought  329  such 
books. 

Amid  this  multiplicity  of  intellectual  interests,  political 
economy  was  not  entirely  neglected.  After  the  death  of  Henry 
Sidgwick,  Dr.  Keynes  was  asked  to  edit  a new  edition  of  his 
Principles  of  Political  Economy,  Later  in  life,  Maynard  recalled  ' 
how  his  father  had  at  this  time  given  him  the  proof-sheets  of  that 
volume  to  correct. 

His  last  two  terms  were  filled  with  activities  of  a kind  proper 
to  one  whose  main  struggle  was  over. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  N,  Keynes^  26th  January  rgo2 

I am  going  to  do  three  extras  this  half,  Lucretius  with  Ramsay, 
History  with  Marten  and  Mathematics  with  Hurst.  For  private 
with  Lubbock  I am  to  read  the  Choephoroe  of  Aeschylus.  . . . We 

* At  the  dinner  giv;pn  him  by  the  Council  of  the  Royal  Economic  Society  on  21st 
Jime  1 945,  on  his  retirement  from  the  editorship  of  the  Economic  Journal. 


AET.  I8J  HOME  AND  ETON  49 

had  College  Pop  P.B.  on  Saturday  night  and  I spoke  an  unconscion- 
able number  of  times. 

I was  elected  to  the  Athletic  Committee  (for  making  arrange- 
ments about  the  sports).  Butler  ^ and  1 have  succeeded  in  reviving 
the  Essay  Society.  . . . 


J,  M,  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  JV.  Keynes,  2nd  Fehniary  jyo2 

On  Friday  the  Head  demanded  of  me  to  choose  a speech  at  a 
moment’s  notice ; I gained  an  hour  by  not  i>oing  to  him,  but  I had 
the  greatest  difficulty  in  finding  anything  that  1 cared  for  and  was 
at  the  same  time  suitable.  Finally  I piodiu  ed  three  alternatives : 
Firstly  a passage  out  of  the  Pope’s  speech  in  7 he  Ring  and  the  Book 
(suggested  in  the  Public  School  Spi^aker).  but  the  Head  lias  always 
consistently  refused  to  allow  Browning,  and  he  told  rne  he  thought  it 
would  prove  gibbeiish  to  the  audience ; Sccondh.  “The  Case  of 
Ruindrum  the  Bailicr  ” out  of  Tht  Shaving  of  Shagpat.  This 
he  seemed  to  think  not  sufficiently  conventional.  M}  third  alter- 
native, however,  Burke’s  Panegyric'  on  Fox  was  thorouglily  to  his 
tas*te,  and  that  1 am  to  do.  1 think  it  is  right  to  at  any  rate  ply  the 
Head  at  first  w'ith  what  is  a little  less  dull  and  conventional  than  the 
old,  old  speeches. 

A cousin  of  Young's  — of  the  same  name,  has  ( cane  to  be  an 
usher  here,  and  yesterday  1 went  to  tea  with  him.  , . . 

This  was  Geoflrey  Winthrop  Young,  renowned  as  a mountain 
climber,  lenowncd  also  later  for  scaling  Alpine  peaks  ulier  he 
had  lost  a leg,  as  well  a-i  for  great  gallantly  in  the  First  World 
War,  a poet  and  author  of  books  cm  cliinbijjg,  etc.  He  has  kindly 
written  out  for  me  his  impressions  of  Maynard  at  Eton. 

Description  of  Keynes  by  Mi,  Geojftey  I'oung 

When  I w'cnt  to  Eton  as  a young  Master,  I heard  of  Maynard  a« 
an  outstanding  mathematical  scholar,  in  College;  and  1 soon  rnc't 
him  among  other  sixth-form  leaders.  But  it  was  at  a literary  society 
that  I first  realised  him.  FTe  was  reading  a paper  on  the  later  Lc.tin 
poets  - - of  all  subjects  ! and  he  traversed  the  vast  field  of  second- 
rate  production  with  masterly  scholarship.  His  reading  had  been 
immense,  his  selection  was  admirable,  and  wit  and  some  well- 
calculated  indiscretions  illuminated  an  astonishingly  mature  per- 
formance. We  were  listening  to  something  much  beyond  the  range 
of  the  normal  clever  sixth-form  boy ; and  the  fineness  of  the  delivery 

* Sir  Ilaiold  Butler. 


E 


) JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

in  a sympathetic  voice  that  never  lost  through  all  his  life  its  intimate 
gaiety,  contributed  further  to  the  effect.  . . . 

As  a boy  he  was  slim,  agile,  pale  and  dark-haired.  He  had  no 
special  athletic  gift,  but  he  suggested  both  in  movement  and  talk,  a 
keen  dark-metal  rapier,  with  light  and  shadow  playing  quickly  over 
it.  “A  dark  ray  ”,  I once  described  him.  His  manner  was  polished, 
after  an  older  fashion,  and  very  lively : too  urbane  ever  to  be  thought 
of  as  a boy’s.  The  small  head  was  finely  modelled ; the  features 
distinctly  ugly  at  first  sight,  with  lips  projecting  and  seeming  to  push 
up  the  well-formed  nose  and  sti  ong  brows  in  slightly  simian  fashion. 
But  the  moment  the  eyes  glanced  up  through  long  lashes,  marvellously 
alive,  with  depths  of  almost  superhuman  intelligence  — nothing  else 
counted  When  the  quick  gay  smile  followed,  the  whole  face  was 
alight,  and  it  held  one  by  an  unusual  charm,  of  sympathy  and 
expression. 

Soon  after  this,  liis  Tutor  sent  him  to  me,  to  practise  essays  for 
scholarship  purposes.  . . . His  style  was  already  lucid  and  trenchant, 
and  his  intellectual  grasp  in  many  fields  far  outdistanced  mine. 
We  treated  essays  Jis  bases  for  discussions.  He  soon  fell  into  the 
habit  of  dropping  in,  one  or  two  evenings  in  each  week,  at  my  house 
in  High  Street ; and  there  in  my  library  we  turned  up  references  and 
talked  over  all  things  <m  earth  and  elsewhere. 

His  reading,  as  1 liave  said,  was  astonishingly  wide  already.  It 
covered  the  whole  literature  in  some  subjects;  and  while  he  read 
quicklv  he  remembcicd  accurately  and  with  excellent  selective  taste. 
Not  only  the  classics  and  notable  authors,  he  had  explored  the 
arcana,  and  knew  more  of  the  private  presses  and  editions  and  of  the 
privately  ciuiilated  books  of  authors  known  and  unknown,  than  I 
had  ever  heard  of. 

In  an  attempt  to  balance  his  formidable  combination  of  in- 
tellectualism  and  aestheticism,  I introduced  him  [this  was  at  a later 
date]  to  the  world  of  open  air  adventure  and  of  natural  beauty, 
using  the  Ideality  of  movement  as  a means.  In  mountain  climbing  he 
became  pai  ticularly  interested,  even  for  a time  enthusiastic.  Delicacy 
of  constitution  prevented  him  maintaining  the  practice;  which  I 
regretted,  sine.'  it  might  have  kept  the  balance  better.  He  would 
have  mountaineered  well.  He  joined  me  once  in  the  Alps,  and  I 
sent  him  ahead  up  the  Aiguille  d’Argentierc,  alone  with  Joseph 
Knubel,  while  I followed  with  another  rope.  I watched  him  climb- 
ing upon  the  very  steep  snow  and  ice  slope  of  the  summit  with  smooth 
security  and  fine  nerve.  Obviously  he  was  revelling  in  every  minute 
of  it.  [In  due  course  we  shall  give  Maynard’s  own  version  of  this 
experience.]  Later,  on  my  suggestion,  he  went  on  a walking  tour  to 
the  Pyrenees,  and  wrote  to  me  very  critically  as  one  climber  to 


AET.  l8] 


HOME  AND  ETON 


51 

another  of  the  poor  technique  of  one  of  his  companions,  and  of  the 
unexpected  speed  and  endurance  he  discovered  in  his  brother. 

J,  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  jV.  Keynes^  gth  P'ehmary  igo2 

Last  night  the*  Literary  Society  (as  the  Essay  S(jciety  is  technically 
called)  had  its  first  meeting  and  Butler  read  an  exceedingly  good 
paper  on  the  British  occupation  of  Egypt. 

We  are  to  have  four  papers  altogether,  the  next  three  from 
Buxton,  Swithinbank  and  Paul  The  son  of  Herbert  Paul  the 
essay  writer).  At  the  close  of  the  proceedings  1 was  elected 
President.  . . . 

I have  also  been  elected  to  the  Committee  of  Management  (com- 
posed of  boys  and  masters)  of  the  School  Stores. 

As  far  as  1 can  make  out  J am  elected  chiefly  as  a person  coni- 
j^elent  to  check  the  financial  affairs.  I am  findii.g  diat,  like  you, 
when  I am  appointed  to  a ccunmiltee.  1 am  inevitably  made  to  do 
all  the  work. 

^Last  week  we  carried  through  a good  deal  of  w(»ik  coiK'erring  the 
leform  and  expurgation  of  C(>llege  Liliraiv.  . . . 

My  speech  came  off  ycsU'rday  after  12.0  in  Upper  School; 
clad  as  to  my  uppers  in  dress  clothes,  and  as  to  my  lowers  in  knee 
])recches  and  black  silk  stockings  1 declaimed  some  of  oni^  of  Mr. 
Burke’s  orations  which  I knew  by  no  means  peifectly,  to  an  audience 
representative  of  Eton  ( College.  . . . 

On  Friday  night  T attended  my  first  Pop  debate  on  our  old  friend 
“ Capital  Punishment  1 spoke  iwace  and  find  that  by  now  I have 
no  modesty  when  on  my  legs,  even  before  a strange  audienc  e. 

I cannot  say  that  the  average  of  speaking  w us  high.  I might  even 
go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  \ as  low.  , . . 

His  claim  that  he  “ haa  to  do  all  the  work  is  (onfirmed  by 
Mr.  Hope-Jones,  wdio  well  remembers  the  heroic  reform  he  carried 
out  in  the  College  Library,  a landmark  in  the  history  of  that 
institution.  Mr.  C.  R.  Fay  confirms  the  point  with  reference  to 
Maynard’s  undergraduate  days.  ' AVhat  was  so  extraordinary 
was  that  while  he  seemed  ^ us  all  to  be  leading  such  a lovely 
life,  yet  he  never  refused  a dirty  job.” 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  i6th  Match  igo2 

Swithinbank  read  a paper  last  night  on  “ Ben  Jonson  His 
behaviour  was  typical ; thotigh  he  had  several  weeks  in  wdaich  to 
prepare  it,  he  did  not  begin  writing  anything  dbwn  until  5.15.  He 


52  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

then  wrote  as  hard  as  he  could  until  7.0,  the  hour  at  which  he  had 
to  read.  He  had  not,  however,  time  to  write  a peroration ; he  was 
saved  by  a great  stroke  of  genius.  He  read  us  out  the  peroration  of 
an  article  on  the  same  subject  that  he  had  got  hold  of.  . . . 

Last  night  the  motion  in  College  Pop  was  that  “ There  is  a 
deplorable  spirit  of  extravagance  at  Eton  It  was  carried  by  the 
casting  vote  of  the  President ; I voted  in  the  minority. 

In  the  Shakespeare  we  have  been  reading  Othello,  I have  taken 
the  title  part.  . . . 

Meanwhile  the  Newcastle  was  about  to  come  off,  the  greatest 
of  the  Eton  prizes,  mainly  classical.  Maynard  could  hardly  hope 
to  win.  Kynaston  was  the  Cambridge  examiner,  and  Godley,  a 
very  well-known  Oxford  figure,  came  from  that  University. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes,  2yd  March  igo2 

Kynaston  looks  an  extremely  nice  old  man,  but  Godley  is  rather 
terrible  and  apparently  very  nemnis.  He  has  the  reputation  of 
being  the  dullest  man  in  Oxford  to  talk  to,  and  of  being  the  greatest 
wit  in  print.  . . . Last  night  we  had  an  essay  from  Paul  on  “ Charles 
Lamb  It  w^as  vciy  good  and  distinctly  the  beft  we  have  had.  . . . 

A few  days  ago  some  foolish  individual  went  about  an  hour  before 
early  sc’hool  and  blocked  up  the  key  holes  of  all  the  doors  of  the 
school  rooms  with*  plaster  of  Paris.  Fortunately  it  was  discovered  in 
time  to  prevent  its  interfering  very  much  wdth  trials.  The  culprit 
has  not  been  discovered  and  the  Head  has  declared  that  unless  he 
gives  himself  up,  no  leave  will  be  given  to  any  of  the  school  cither  this 
half  or  next.  I am  very  sorry  that  the  Head  has  acted  thus.  The 
principle  of  such  a punishment  is  in  my  opinion  atrociously  bad  and 
not  at  all  consonant  with  his  usual  methods.  It  is  not  even  certain 
that  the  offender  was  a present  member  of  the  school.  Threats  of 
this  kind  in  a case  where  the  rest  of  the  school  neither  knows  the 
culprit,  nor  has  taken  any  part  in  the  crime,  seem  to  me  most 
unwise  and  useless.  Besides  I don’t  suppose  for  a moment  that  he 
will  be  able  tc  enforce  it  strictly. 

Pallis  won  the  Newcastle,  and  the  order  in  the  ‘‘  select  ” 
was  Ainger,  Dundas,  Hamilton,  Keynes.  . . . 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  J.  N.  Keynes,  2nd  May  igo2 

I have  bought  a perfect  dove  of  a waistcoat,  lavender  with  pale 
pink  spots  (Wycombe  papers  please  copy)  * . . . 

^ Maynard’s  sister,  Margaret,  was  then  at  Wycombe  Abbey  School. 


AET.  l8J 


HOME  AND  ETON 


53 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  JV*.  Keynes^  nth  May  igo2 

“ The  Mirror  ” as  it  is  to  be  called,  will  come  out  on  Tuesday ; 
I have  not  had  time  to  contribute  anything  for  this  first  number,  but 
I have  got  two  or  three  things  out  of  Swithinbank  for  it.  . . . 

Rehearsals  for  speeches  are  now  in  full  swing,  Butler  and  I are 
doing  Act  III  scene  iv  . . . of  The  Rivals ; it  is  not  at  all  easy.  . . . 
I am  Acres  and  Butler  Sir  Lucius. 

We  are  doing  Hamlet  at  the  Shakespeare,  and  I am  enacting 
the  part  of  the  melancholy  Dane.  . . . 

It  is  difficult  to  realise  that  the  cataclysm  at  St.  Pierre  i<  probably 
the  greatest  disaster  of  the  kind  that  has  taken  place  in  the  histf»ry 
of  civilisation.  The  destruction  of  Pompeii  and  Hcrculaiicuin  was 
on  a much  smaller  scale,  they  v'cre  much  smaller  cities ; It 
is  difficult  to  analyse  the  apathy  with  which  one  accepts  such  .i 
stupendous  .event. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  Keynes^  i^lh  May  tqo2 

•The  scenes  that  M^e  are  doing  from  Much  Ado  About  Kothing 
are  . . . \^ery  much  against  my  inclination  I am  being  made  to 
do  “ Dogberry  ”,  . . . 

On  Tuesday  1 played  in  ” Aquatics  'J’liis  is  a weekly  game  of 
cricket  played  by  members  of  Upper  Boats  under  Aquatic  Rules.  . . . 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes^  ijthjnnc  igo2 

Last  night  Young  re«id  an  extraordinarily  good  essay  on  Praed. 
I don’t  believe  any  otlier  scliool  could  keep  up  so  good  a series  of 
papers.  . . . 

These  arc  but  a few  items  fiom  a vast  catalogue  of  interesting 
events  which  crowded  the  letters  of  this  last  term,  despite  the  fact 
that  some  days  were  taken  out  of  it  by  one  ol  his  feverish  attacks. 
And  at  the  end  ol*  term  he  was  once  again  first  in  the  school  in 
the  Higher  .Certificate  Examination  During  the  course  of  it  he 
found  time  to  cover  four  pages  ol  foolscap  examination  paper 
with  a letter  to  his  father. 

Eton  College  i 

Subject  J-  M.  Keynes,  K.S. 

Sunday  Letter  Certificate  Index  No.  170 

The  end  of  this  half  will  be  made  additionally  miserable  by  the 
fact  that  Camp  has  been  made  compulsory  and  that  therefore  nearly 


54  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

everyone  is  going  off  on  Tuesday  morning.  I have  just  reached  a 
very  melancholy  stage.  Last  night  I received  a vote  of  thanks  in 
College  Pop,  which  I think  I desired  perhaps  more  than  anything 
else  that  remains  to  be  got  here.  Eton  has  been  much  kinder  to  me 
than  I deserve.  . . . 

He  was  not  the  only  one  to  be  miserable. 


i2.  //.  Dundas  to  J.  M.  Keynes^  ^rd  August  igo2 

I think  I have  never  spent  a sadder  day  than  on  Tuesday. 
Your  words  on  Monday  night  “ before  we  part  ” had  brought  home 
to  me  rather  forcibly  that  we  were  going  to  part  in  earnest,  and  that 
the  old  Eton  life  was  over  as  far  as  1 was  concerned,  for  Eton  will 
never  be  the  same.  You  have  always  taken  the  chief  part  in  that 
time  as  far  as  I was  concerned,  but  what  applies  to  y('u  also  applies 
more  or  less  to  all  the  others.  . . . 

I hope  I shall  sec  you  often.  . . . 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

Robert  Hamilton  Dundas 


C!  II  A P T K R II 


UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE 

1 

IN  October  1902  Maynard  entered  the  Royal  Foundation.  Its 
outward  aspect  is  indeed  regal.  On  the  right  of  the  front  court 
is  the  famous  Clhapel,  with  its  matchless  array  of  lignts  and 
buttresses  unbroken  by  any  transept.  Facing  the  lodge  is  Gibbs’ 
classic  masterpiece,  well  known  for  the  view  of  its  other  frontage 
which  is  obtained  from  the  Backs.  There  is  a great  lawn  in  the 
front  court,  and  the  proportions  are  just,  giving  both  a sense  of 
spleiTdid  spaciousness  and  the  right  pei speed ve  to  the  buildings. 
Beyond  Gibbs’  Building  is  a still  greater  lawn,  reaching  to  the 
river. 

At  first,  however,  he  was  somewhat  removed  from  these  glories. 
Passing  through  the  Wilkins  Building  on  the  left,  one  goes  into  a 
mean  court,  surrounded  by  a confused  jumble  of  ugly  structures. 
Passing  still  beyond,  down  steps,  through  a wretched  subway 
under  King’s  Lane,  one  reaches  a number  of  poky  sets  of  rooms 
known  as  “ the  Lane  Having  arrived  here,  Maynard  had  to 
climb  to  the  first  floor.  There  he  found  his  small  rooms,  by  no 
means  conducive  to  the  cc  infortable  life.  It  is  understood  that 
part  of  the  money  which  he  has  bequeathed  to  King  s College  will 
be  used  to  build  better  sets  on  this  site. 

None  the  less  it  was  a privilege  to  be  there.  At  Oxford 
freshmen  are  brought  together  into  their  colleges  in  th<  ir  first 
year,  in  order  to  be  easily  initiated  into  the  coipoiate  life.  In 
their  third  or  fourth  year,  "hen  the  need  for  the  concentrated 
study  of  books  is  at  its  height,  they  are  sent  out  into  their  separate 
“ digs  ” in  the  town,  in  which  the  number  of  visits  by  friendly 
intruders  is  likely  to  be  less.  Cambridge  has  the  custom,  which 
to  an  Oxford  man  appears  inferior,  of  leaving  the  men  in  lodgings 
outside  college  during  their  first  and,  possibly,  second  years,  arid 
only  bringing  them  within  the  college  walls  subsequently.  Kmg  s, 
• 'Fhc  alternative  name,  “ the  Drain  ”,  is  a modem  vulgarhm  unknown  in  1902. 

55 


[1902 


56  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

however,  made  special  arrangements  for  its  scholars  in  their  first 
year;  they  were  given  accommodation  in  the  Lane;  there, 
crowded  together,  they  certainly  had  a good  opportunity  of  getting 
to  know  one  another. 

On  the  landing  above,  Maynard  found  a^  fresh  young  man 
from  the  north,  with  rough-hewn  features  and  tousled  hair, 
a warm  handshake  and  a hearty  and  earnest  manner  of  speech. 
This  was  G.  R.  Fay.’'  At  this  moment  Fay’s  life  was  a welter 
of  excitement  and  triumph ; educated  at  Merchant  Taylors’, 
Crosby,  he  had  played  rugger  for  Lancashire,  and  was  now 
about  to  play  for  Cambridge  University,  thereby  in  his  freshman 
term  bringing  honour  to  his  college.  He  may  have  doubted 
whether  the  extremely  urbane,  grown-up,  sophisticated  and, 
evidently,  most  intellectual  scholar  from  Eton  would  be  inter- 
ested in  these  delights ; but  the  old  Eton  wall  knew  the  thrill 
of  them  quite  well.  And  he  was  delighted  by  Fay’s  brimming 
enthusiasm.  They  very  soon  became  fast  friends.  Fay  was  work- 
ing for  the  History  Tripos,  and  was  interested,  then  as  always,  in 
social  and  economic  problems.  Here  was  a new  type,  quite 
din'erent  from  those  who  freciueiited  Eton  Colle1^(‘  or  Harvey  Road. 
Here  was  a point  of  view  to  be  examined,  ond  Maynard  kept 
finding  his  way  upstairs  to  take  up  the  argument.  They  argued 
and  argued. 

In  the  next  Easter  vacation  Fay  took  Maynard  on  a visit  to  his 
parents  in  Liverpool.  They  were  people  of  strong  Conservative 
and  Low  Church  views.  He  recalls  wh<it  pains  Maynard  was  at 
to  make  himself'  an  engaging  guest  and  show  a sympathetic 
understanding  of  all  his  parents’  interests.  Fay  was  thus  able  to 
be  proud  and  pleased  at  the  impression  which  his  clever  college 
friend  was  making.  In  fact  it  probably  caused  Maynard  no 
trouble,  for  he  would  be  fascinated  to  get  this  glimpse  of  a different 
point  of  view,  and  had  a natural  spontaneous  sympathy  with  all 
manner  of  men.  It  is  appropriate  to  apply  to  him  in  this  connec- 
tion a word  that  is  falling  into  disuse,  but  has  played  no  little  part 
in  British  history.  Despite  his  devastating  rudeness,  which,  how- 
ever, he  had  under  control  when  he  chose,  he  was  every  inch  a 
gentleman. 

In  the  room  opposite  his  was  W.  M.  Page,  also  a mathematical 
scholar,  destined  to  be  above  Maynard  in  the  list  of  Wranglers 
in  1905  and  to  be  elected  to  a Fellowship  at  King’s  in^the  year 

* The  well-known  economic  historian. 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  57 

before  Maynard  was  elected.  They  were  sent  together  by  the 
King’s  authorities  to  receive  instruction  from  Mr.  Hobson  * 
(“  Hobbema  ” always  to  Maynard),  Fellow  of  Christ’s  College, 
and  afterwards  Sadleirian  Professor  of  Pure  Mathematics.  Mr. 
Hurst’s  fears  that  Maynard  would  be  frozen  out  by  Berry’s 
purities  were  needless ; King’s  knew  its  job ; it  dispatched  its 
mathematical  scholars  in  their  first  year  to  one  of  the  best  coaches 
in  Cambridge. 

Maynard’s  logical  faculty,  his  accurac  y and  his  lightning  speed 
of  thought  made  him  a thoroughly  competent  mathematician. 
He  had  no  specific  genius  for  mathematics ; he  had  to  take  pains 
with  his  work;  while  showing  eiruieney  and  good  style  within 
his  range,  he  did  not  seek  out  thcjsc  abstruse  regions  which  are 
a joy  to  the  heart  of  the  professional  matln^matician.  From  the 
beginning  of  his  time  at  fhimbridge  he  had  man)  other  intercj^ts, 
and  only  by  diligent  industry  did  he  acliieve  the  recjuired  standard 
in  mathematics.  When  Dr.  Keynes  was  <i  guest  at  tlic  Founder’s 
Feaf?t  at  King’s  in  Dcccmlicr  1904  it  was  not  very  comforting  to 
be  told  by  Berry  that  lie  thought  he  could  honestly  say  that 
Maynard  was  devoting  all  his  spiue  time  to  mathematics”! 
Despite  his  earlier  frailties,  he  showed  remark*iblc  pcjwers  of  work. 
Although  he  spent  most  evenings  at  some  society  and  afterwards 
in  endless  arguments  with  his  friends,  going  to  b(‘d  at  about  3 a.m., 
Mr.  Page  recalls  that  he  was  al\va)s  as  fresh  as  a dais/  when 
receiving  instruction  from  Mr.  Hobson  at  9 a.m.  the  next  morn- 
ing. This  happened  three  times  a week.  As  they  walked  back 
from  Christ’s,  Maynard  insisted  on  jiausing  for  a while  at 
David’s  bookstall  and  olu'ii  made  a purchase'.  Mr.  Page  has 
carried  in  his  mind  an  incidcmt  on  their  return  journey.  A young 
crippled  girl  was  coming  along  King's  Parade  on  crutches,  and  a 
high  gust  of  wind  carried  ofl'  lic'i  hat  and  deposited  it  in  front  <h 
a tram-car.  Stay  where  you  are ! ” and  like  a streak  the  old 
college  wall  retrieved  the  hat.  A ohnple  act  of  kindness,  perliaps ; 
but  Page  had  the  idea  tha^  ’mdcrgradiiatc^  freshmen  are  not  often 
so  considerate,  usually  having  their  heads  in  the*  clouds. 

Robin  Furness,  who  dw^elt  opposite  Fay  above,  must  be 
written  down  as  Maynard’s  best  friend  at  King’s  during  his 
undergraduate  days.  He  was  a young  man  of  literary  interests, 
and  good  taste  and  judgment,  abounding  in  fancies,  and  of 

intellectual  calibre  to  make  an  excellent  companion  for  Maynard. 

• • 

> Fatbrr  of  Mr.  Oscar  Hobsem,  the  well-known  wrirer  on  financial  questions. 


58  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1Q02 

He  was  also  a boon  companion,  a pleasure-loving  companion, 
and  revelled  in  scandalous  gossip  and  anecdote;  their  tongues 
wagged  in  that  good  old  way  that  provides  a natural  and  healthy 
outlet  for  the  young;  their  ingenious  minds  often  added  such 
embroidery  to  the  details,  that  the  simple-hearted  Fay  sometimes 
thought  they  went  a little  too  far. 

On  the  ground  floor  was  an  old  Eton  friend,  Capron.  At 
this  time  he  was  deeply  involved  with  his  planchettc-board  and 
levitation.  Pictures  took  themselves  off  his  walls  and  mantelpiece 
and  deposited  themselves  on  the  floor.  Maynard  certainly  had 
an  epitome  of  undergraduate  life  on  his  stair.  Capron  afterwards 
took  Orders,  and  did  faithful  duty  as  Vicar  oi*  Scarbonmgh,  and 
elsewhere. 

Intellectual  fliers  usually  find  it  expedient  to  give  up  rowing 
when  they  reach  the  university.  Not  so  Maynaid.  He  was 
alwjiys  most  reluctant  to  abandon  an  old  love,  in  order  to  make 
way  for  new  interests.  Harold  Butler  expressed  his  surprise  from 
Balliol  ((ollege,  Oxford,  to  hear  that  Keynes  was  still  “ toiling 
at  the  oar”,  but  so  it  was.  In  the  Michaelmas  term  he  rowed  in 
Trial  C"  Crock  ”)  Eights,  and,  great  glory,  hislioat  won,  and  he 
achieved  a cup  for  his  pains. 

J.  M,  Keynes  io  B,  W.  Sunf/nnhank,  :>y1h  Novernbei^ 

1 have  w^on  a pot  at  rowing;  tell  it  not  among  the  heathen.  1 
sang  a song  l)rf(H’e  an  audience  of  iieaily  fifty  last  night;  tell  it  not 
in  Ciath. 

In  the  next  teiui  he  was  included  in  the  “ Lent  Boat  ”.  But  he 
had  to  give  it  up  in  the  end  and  relapse  into  milder  forms  of  exer- 
eise.  He  and  Gasclec  and  two  others  used  to  play  an  extremely 
rudimentary  game  of  lawn-tennis  to  their  own  great  amusement, 
and  to  that  of  others  who  happened  to  pass  by.  He  was  a 
much  better  performer  at  golf;  at  one  time  lie  and  Mr.  Leonard 
Woolf  played  at  Royston  icgularly  every  Saturdjiy  afternoon. 
He  was  also  fond  of  riding.  At  a later  period  he  went  out  with 
Lowes  Dickinson,  who,  we  may  believe,  was  not  a very  proficient 
horseman. 

If  we  record  that  Maynard  pursued  mathematics  as  his  subject 
of  study  and  kept  fit  by  rowing  on  the  river,  we  have  only  scratched 
the  surface  of  his  undergraduate  activities  at  Cambridge. 

It  is  to  be  empHasiseci  that  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge  tke  main 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  59 

part  of  an  undergraduate’s  education  is  imbibed  from  other  under- 
graduates. One  may  indeed  acquire  from  lectures  or  laboratories 
the  rudiments  of  a subject  in  which  one  wishes  to  specialise.  But 
the  processes  of  higher  educ  ation  are  subtler ; it  is  a question  of 
what  gives  the  stimulus  to  the  creative  or  logical  poweis  and  of 
the  mode  by  whic  h the  mind  makes  a transition  from  the  common- 
place  to  the  mature  outlook.  This  higher  education  has  to  provide 
our  societ>  with  men  capable  of  initiating  new  thought,  whether 
in  letters  or  in  science,  and  with  men  who,  by  tl)e  bieadth  and 
mellowness  of  their  understanding,  will  be  capable  eventually  of 
valuable  leadeiship  in  statesmanship,  commcKc  and  industry. 

It  is  the  gcneial  tcstiiiKJiiy  of  those  who  have  achieved  dh- 
tinction  in  these  v^irious  fields  that  thev  learnt  moie  of  pcimanent 
value  fiom  their  fellow -undeigi«»duales  than  in  any  other  w'ay. 
There  arc  the  societies  for  debate  and  discussion,  .ind  there  arc 
certain  traditions  which  the  oldei  generath)n  of  undergraduates 
hands  on  to  its  successors.  Part  of  the  tradition  is  a (crlain  mode 
ol  Imnkncss  in  discussion.  Ihe  hall-foimed  thought  in  a young 
mind  may  easily  witlici,  smothered  by  the  conventional  platitudes 
of  the  nniiket-pLuo.  At  the  uni\cisit\  it  is  not  allowed  to  die; 
it  is  drawn  out,  dev  (‘loped  and  tested  m aigumeni,  so  that  each 
young  man  4uquires  so  11-confidence,  and  thciewdth  the  power 
to  develop  his  gifts.  'Fhe  technique  by  which  this  is  achieved  — 
more  ancient  than  the  psycho-anal>st’s  sofa  -is  peculi.ir  to 
undergraduate  life;  it  consists  in  a ceitain  subtle  blend  of  flip- 
pancy and  intimcisv.  Pheu  there  is  the  clash  of  opinion.  It  is 
de  jigneur  in  the  luiiveisitv  atmosphere  to  pielciid  to  understand 
the  merits  of  the  opposite  >oint  ol  \ lew  ; one  ends  by  really  doing 
so,  and  theiebv  beionies  aii  cducat»'d  man. 

The  dons  torm  a background  for  these  vittd  processes.  They 
form  a good  background,  because,  although  the>  may  often  be 
old-fashioned  and  crabbed  in  their  general  views,  they  are 
icvolutionaVies  in  their  own  subjects,  no  matter  whether  it  is  a 
question  of  splitting  an  ato.n  >r  displacing  a comma  in  an  ancient 
text.  Thus  the  pupil  who  receives  instruction  is  made  conscious 
of  a dyiraniic  world  of  new  discover),  and  ol  the  fundamental 
insecurity  of  established  orthodoxies.  He  gets  a glimpse  of  the 
processes  by  which  new  truths  are  arriv'^d  at.  It  does  not  matter 
that  dons  are  often  poor  teachers,  lor  the  aptitude  to  research, 
which  is  their  lundamental  business,  may  not  be  conjoined  with 
the  teacher’s  flair . 


6o  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

Imprinted  upon  the  old  fabrics  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  is 
the  clear  intention  to  provide  convenient  means  for  combining 
communal  life  with  private  life.  Communal  life  is  important  — 
easy  means  for  the  continuous  process  of  discussion  by  day  and 
by  night.  But  private  life  is  equally  important,  the  seclusion  of 
one’s  own  set  of  rooms,  where  one  may  turn  over  one’s  thoughts 
undisturbed.  The  oak  may  be  sported,  if  necessary.  The  separate 
stairs  without  inter-communicating  corridors  are  important  in 
this  connection.  A central  Authority  granting  funds  for  a hostel 
may  plead  that  separate  stairs  are  more  expensive.  But  that  is  just 
the  point  at  issue.  Would  that  central  Authority  even  conceive 
the  possibility  that  it  might  be  more  truly  in  the  interest  of  higher 
education  to  Ibrgo  six  professorships  and  to  spend  the  money  thus 
saved  on  separate  stairs  - or  on  additional  domestic  service,  to 
ensure  that  the  characteristic  mixture  oi*  communal  •'and  private 
life  was  successfully  achiev  cd  ? 

One  cannot  look  closely  at  Maynard’s  education  at  Cambridge 
without  perceiving  that,  in  so  far  as  it  contributed  to  his  being 
the  man  he  was,  professors  were  of  minor  importance,  while  the 
particular  kind  ol'comnuina!  and  private  life  howas  able  to  lead 
in  King’s  at  that  thne  was  e\er> thing. 

Its  best  known  undergraduate  society  was  the  Walpole  Debat- 
ing Society,  in  which  Maynard  took  an  active  part.  There  was 
a more  select  and  august  body  known  as  Decemviri,  consisting 
of  only  ten  inembeis,  as  its  name  implies.  This  w^as  a mixed 
Society  of  Trinity  men  and  King's  men,  and  Maynard  was  soon 
elected,  lie  was  also,  aluiost  at  the  outset,  elected  to  the  Apennine 
Society,  the  oldest  Jatcrary  Society  in  King’s.  I’hen  there  was 
the  Cnion.  He  became  a member  on  the  nomination  of  Dr. 
Keynes  on  October  10th.  We  find  him  speaking  for  the  motion 
“ that  the  British  system  of  government  by  party  is  becoming  a 
hindrance  to  useful  legislation  ”.  The  Granta  noted  that  Mr. 
Keynes,  a maiden  speaker  and  freshman,  was  quite  excellent.  He 
has  that  taking  quiet  manner,  w^hich  is  so  rare  in  the  Union,  and 
interesting  opinions  even  on  a dull  subject  at  a late  hour ; but  he 
speaks  a little  too  fast.”  He  supported  the  motion  on  the  ground 
that  individuals  tended  to  be  submerged  in  parties. 

Edwin  Montagu,  a Liberal,  and  subsequently  Secretary  of 
State  for  India,  was  President,  and  gave  Maynard  encouragement. 
Later  in  the  term  he  had  the  honour  of  being  tabled  to  speak  “ on 
the  paper  ”.  He  opposed  the  motion  “ that  this  House  welcomes 


AET.  i9l  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  6i 

the  proposal  that  Mr.  Joseph  Chamberlain  should  visit  South 
Africa  He  objected  to  placing  abscdutc  power  in  the  hands 
of  a Cabinet  Minister.  “It  was  a dangerous  precedent  to  let 
Mr.  Chamberlain  loose  and  uncontrolled  over  South  Africa.” 
But  Fay  spoke  on  the  other  side.  Maynard  joined  the  Liberal 
Club  and  was  in  due  course  to  be  involved  in  much  Liberal  speak- 
ing, both  at  the  University  and  elsewhere. 

Scarcely  had  he  arrived  in  Cambridge,  when  he  decided  to 
make  a canvas  of  the  scholarly  colony  in  the  Lane,  to  persuade 
them,  whatever  their  subject  of  study,  to  come  and  hear  McTag- 
gart’s  lectures  on  general  philosophy.  The  lectures  were  intended 
for  such  an  audience ; Maynard  would  have  known  of  McTag- 
gart’s  eminence  from  his  father.  Early  in  the  lollowing  term  he 
received  an  invitation  from  Mcl’apgart  to  go  to  his  “ ^Vednesday 
Evenings”.  These  were  social  evenings,  but  i\KT.iggart  lacked 
the  gift  of  putting  the  young  men  at  case.  Mr.  liConard  Woolf 
has  rather  grim  memories  of  it ; Mc'Taggart  might  become  lost 
in  silent  thought,  unconscious  of  the  passage  of  time,  but  the 
undergraduates  w^ere  on  tenterhooks,  very  much  conscious  of 
waiting  for  the  great  man.  Woolf  once  ac  lually  timed  one  of 
these  terrible  silences,  and  found  that  it  lasted  no  l(*ss  than  ten 
minutes.  But  if  a somewhat  senior  man  was  prt‘scnt,  the  scene 
was  quite  transformed  and  the  evening  lively ; Sanger  in  particu- 
lar had  a way  wdth  the  redoubtable  philosopher.  Sanger  was  an 
interesting  person,  already  down,  but  a frecjuf-nt  visitoi  ; he  had 
shown  brilliant  promise  as  an  undergraduate  and  wa-.  much 
respected  by  Maynard  and  liis  friends.  They  always  maintained 
contact  with  him.^ 

Maynard  probably  did  not  often  go  to  the>e  rather  forbidding 
sessions ; his  philosophical  allegiance  soon  began  to  shift.  But 
he  went  to  the  lectures,  and  these  stimulated  him  to  write  a 
Paper  on  “ Time  ”,  which  was  read  in  Stephen  G.isclee’s  rooms 
to  the  Parrhesiasts,  one  of  the  countless  undergraduate  societies. 
It  was  an  astonishingly  mature  wf)rk  for  a freshman,  not  even  a 
specialist  in  philosophy.  Time  was  essentially  relative.  Its 
measurements  depended  on  the  unsupported  assumption  that  the 
time  intervals  between  recurring  events  of  a certain  character, 
e,g.  the  complete  rotation  of  the  earth,  w^re  equal.  The  scientists 
might  allege  that  the  tides  were  retarding  the  earth's  spin  to  the 

* Krypps  wrote  a notice  of  him  on  his  death,  Economic  Journal,  March  1930.  TJiere 
is  a fleeting  vision  of  him  under  the  name  of  Sandys  in  \'irginia  Woolf’s  Night  and  Day. 


62  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

extent  of  one  second  in  a hundred  thousand  years ; this  proposi- 
tion could  only  have  meaning  if  there  were  other  recurring  events 
arbitrarily  assumed  by  definition  to  be  equidistant  in  time.  If  one 
wanted  to  criticise  the  regularity  of  these  other  events,  then  one 
must  have  some  other  standard  which  in  its  turn  would  be  equally 
arbitrary.  There  was  no  absolute.  It  was  just  as  true  to  say 
that  the  Sun  moved  round  the  Earth,  as  that  the  Earth  moved 
round  the  Sun.  (This  was,  of  course,  before  the  era  of  “ Rela- 
tivity More  generally  the  concept  of  time  was  dependent  on 
change.  “ If  you  admit  the  existence  of  a background  ol  empty 
time,  l^eyond  and  apart  from  change,  you  have  no  right  to  deny 
the  possibility  of  the  elapse  of  a million  million  years  between 
the  utterance  of  inv  last  two  words.”  He  proceeded  to  a more 
general  philc^sophical  discussion.  If  there  was  purpose  in  the 
Universe,  and  Time  stretched  infinitely  backwards,  that  purpose 
must  be  already  achieved.  If  the  Universe  was  the  scene  of  a 
combat  between  two  powers.  Good  and  Evil,  they  must  be  of 
precisely  identical  strength  a peculiar  condition.  Were  V'C  in 
due  course  to  enter  into  »i  timeless  state?  “ It  is  difficult  to  sec, 
in  what  sense  an  entiy  into  such  an  existences wnmld,  from  our 
present  point  of  view,  difl’er  Ironi  complete  extinction.'’  While 
he  could  not  acc’cpt  Kant's  view  of  time,  he  concluded  that  the 
common-sense  view  of  it  was  probably  illusory.  The  j)apcj‘  was 
wonderfully  undogmatic  for  a very  young  man.  It  posed  the 
problems  without  claiming  to  sol\e  ihem.^ 

One  of  the  most  inlluential  of  the  younger  dons  at  King’s  was 
Goldsworthy  Lowes  Dickinson  (‘'Goldie").  He  had  to  teac'h 
history  and  political  sulyects;  he  wms  not  a great  specialist,  and 
it  ww  a mark  of  enlightenment  in  King's  to  have  this  \cry  stimu- 
lating teacher  on  its  staff.  He  was  a very  sw'cet  person,  simple 
and  fritmdly.  Struggling  with  great  problems  in  discussions  with 
the  young,  he  used  sometimes  to  end  with  a little  shrug  of  despair 
and  a smile,  which  gave,  and  yet  simultaneously  seemed  to  appeal 
for,  sympathy.  How  could  we  poor  mortals  ever  find  our  way 
among  these  baffling  problems?  His  style  was  straightforward 
and  unadorned.  His  outstanding  quality  was  one  of  which  we 
shall  have  to  take  recurrent  note  among  these  distinguished 


* Mr.  Page  believes  that  I his  paper  was  read  in  Maynard's  first  term.  The 
meeting  of  the  Parihesiasts  which  htard  it  was  in  May  1903.  at  the  beginning  of  his 
third.  But  it  may  wcU  ha\e  been  read  to  more  than  one  Society.  Interrjal  evidence 
shows  that  it  was  written  before  the  close  of  McTaggart’s  course  of  lectures. 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  63 

Cambridge  personalities,  that  of  absolute  integrity.  He  followed 
the  thought  where  it  led,  and  if  it  led  to  no  solution  — well,  do 
not  let  us  pretend  ! He  was  full  of  passionate  yearnings,  yet  cool 
and  balanced  in  judgment,  and  distrustful  of  the  conclusions  of 
enthusiasts.  Mr.  E.  M.  Forster  has  given  a fine  sensitive  portrait 
of  him.* 

He  exerted  a very  strong  influence  on  all  the  ch  ver  youth 
both  in  King’s  and  beyond,^  and  thereby  on  Maynard,  although 
the  direct  influence  may  not  have  been  great.  His  mind  lacked 
the  keen  cutting  edge  which  Maynard  loved.  Though  his  interests 
wxre  philosophical,  yet  in  deep  philosophy  he  was  an  amateur. 
Would  he  even  have  und(‘rstood  Maynard's  freshman  paper  on 
“ Time  ” ? His  style  of  writing  was  lucid,  and  at  times  had  con- 
siderable beauty.  He  seemed  to  state  the  case,  or  opposing  cases, 
in  plain  language,  entirely  free  from  ol)scujity  ; )et  perhaps  it 
is  not  true  that  style  always  reflects  the  mind,  for  in  the  last 
analysis  there  was  a certain  woolliness  in  his  thought. 

l^ut  his  ‘'Discussion  Society " » which  Maynard  was 
natur«dly  asked  to  join  — was  a forum  for  a select  number  of 
King's  intellectuals,  at  w^hich  eminent  philosc^phers  from  without, 
McTaggart,  Bertrand  Russell  and  G.  E.  Moore,  occ'asionally 
appeared.  There  the  problems  of  the  hour  were  discussed,  and 
eternal  problems  --  religion,  the  significance  of  music  and  poetry, 
philosophy,  the  ideal  social  order.  He  w<is  not  dogmatic  in 
politics,  but  he  seemed  to  waft  with  him,  in  his  gentle  way,  the 
atmosphere  of  the  Fabians  and  others  of  the  ])rogrcssive  vanguaid, 
with  whom  he  was  associating  in  London.  He  was  concerned  in 
the  foundation  of  the  Loudon  School  of  Economics,  and  lectured 
there  occasionally,  and  at : later  dale  regularb  . He  was  a founder 
also  of  the  Ind( pendent  ReiieWy  which  was  a vehicle  for  the  thoughts 
of  the  younger  progressives  for  a number  of  years.  At  Cambridge 
at  this  time,  he  was  ('oncerned  with  the  inauguration  of  the 
new  Economic  Tripos,  which  included  Political  Science.  Alfred 
Marshall  was  the  real  architect  of  this  new  degree,  which  was  to 
give  economics  a place  in  the  University  curriculum  alongside 
classics,  history  and  the  other  great  subjects  of  study.  But  Marshall 

* Goldsworthy  Lowes  Dickinson^  by  I'^.  M.  Foistrr.  Publ.  Ainold. 

^ (Ji.  p.  Ill  below. 

3 Mr.  E.  M.  Forster  (op.  rit.  p.  102)  wrongly  dates  the  foundation  of  this  Society 
at  1904.  Many  remember  it  in  earlier  years,  and  it  was  a going  concern  when 
Lowes  Dickinson  went  on  his  trip  to  America  in  1901  and  asked  Berry  to  look  after  it 
in  his  absence. 


64  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [190* 

was  rather  difficult  in  business,  and  it  is  thought  that  the  necessary 
University  legislation  would  not  have  been  passed  without  further 
delay,  save  through  the  sweet  reasonableness  of  Lowes  Dickinson 
in  persuading  the  Cambridge  historians  and  others  concerned  to 
support  it. 

The  First  World  AVar  was  probably  a more  devastating  blow 
to  Dickinson  than  to  any,  save  those  who  suffered  the  loss  of  their 
loved  ones.  Thereafter  he  was  a changed  man.  Out  of  the  wreck- 
age of  his  shattered  hopes  and  aspirations,  he  pieced  together  a 
new  self,  which  stood  forth  as  a flaming  crusader  for  peace.  His 
whole  being  was  concentrated  on  this  one  purpose.  There  was 
no  more  woolliness,  no  more  aimless  wandering  in  a world  of 
unplumbetl  ideas.  His  thciughts  were  focused.  \Vhcn  this  quaint 
little  figure,  rather  untidy,  rather  fragile,  stood  up  to  address  a 
large  audience,  in  simple,  unadorned,  at  first  rather  stumbling  sen- 
tences, speaking  the  language  of  everyday  with  his  gift  of  pellucid 
expression,  gradually  building  up  an  argument  that  all  could 
understand,  his  absolute  integrity  shining  forth,  he  succeeded  in 
inspiring  his  auclieiRc  with  that  passion  for  peace  which  had  his 
own  life  in  thrall.  One  felt  that  now  mdeed  one in  the  presence 
of  a prophet  of  righteousness.  That  was  the  consummation  of  his 
powers.  But  the  elements  were  always  there ; and  one  could 
see  clearly  what  it  was  that,  despite  his  shortcomings,  stirred  the 
hearts  and  minds  of  the  young  so  strongly  in  his  earlier  days. 

At  the  opposite  extreme  to  Goldie  in  the  King’s  scene  was 
Maynard’s  old  Etonian  friend,  Stephen  Gasclcc,  with  “ his  bridge 
and  port  and  brandy  and  soda  ”.  When  Gasclcc  arrived  there 
the  year  l^cfore,  he  made  a great  impression  as  being  already  so 
mature  and  accomplished  a man  of  the  world.  The  general 
verdict,  however,  is  that  the  similar  impression  made  by  Maynard 
a year  later  was  even  greatoi  ! Gaselee,  it  is  true,  was  more  inter- 
ested than  Maynard  in  matters  of  deportment.  He  liked  to  be 
well  dressed,  and  clung  to  older  fashions.  Later,  when  an  M.A. 
on  a visit  from  London,  he  astonished  spectators  by  coming  to 
service  at  the  college  chapel  in  the  old  traditional  style,  namely, 
a tall  hat  and  an  M.A.  go^vn.  (Antiquaries  have  not  unearthed 
this  custom  at  Oxford.)  During  the  Second  World  War  he  was 
to  be  seen  proceeding  Jrom  the  Foreign  Office,  where  he  was  the 
Librarian  for  many  years,  in  spats,  sponge-bag  trousers,  a bow  tie 
and  a starched  upright  collar,  not  white  but  bright  bespeckled 
pink,  its  points  boring  into  his  lower  jaw. 


ABT.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  65 

Maynard  and  Gaselee  were  widely  opposed  in  opinions  and 
temperament  Gaselee  was  a Tory  and  an  unbending  churchman. 
But  they  had  much,  as  well  as  their  maturity,  in  common. 
Gaselee  had  read  widely  and  was  a witty  talker  and  shared 
Maynard’s  interests  in  later  Latin.  They  were  also  both  keen 
book  collectors.  Maynard  soon  made  the  acquaintance  of  Mr. 
Arthur  Cole,  also  one  year  senior,  who  shared  the  tasie,  and  was 
his  lifelong  correspondent  on  these  matters.  Mr.  Charles  Sayle, 
Deputy  Librarian  of  Cambridge  University  Library,  was  eager  to 
spot  undergraduates  with  a book-loving  taste.  One  day  in  1903 
he  and  Cole  decided  to  form  a society  of  book-loveis,  which  was 
named  the  Baskervillc  Clul).  Maynard  and  Gascdcc  were  roped 
in  on  the  following  day,  and  two  or  three  more  were  added.  Their 
meetings  were  usually  at  breakfast  time,  Cole  acting  as  secretary. 
Maynard  was  an  active  member  and  bought  man)  Baskervilles 
during  his  undergraduate  days.  Maynard  also  spent  much  time 
with  Dr.  Montague  Janies,^  a scholar  ofirmnense  learning,  who 
was 'a  guide  in  questions  1 elating  to  old  books  and  manuscripts, 
and  an  expert  in  late  Latin  literature,  to  which  Maynard  was 
continuing  to  devote  a considerable  anioiml  of  his  attention. 

Gaselee  was  also  a companion  in  amusement,  particularly  at 
the  bridge  table.  Maynard  was  fond  of  bridge,  both  as  an  under- 
graduate and  later  as  a don.  Gasc'lcc,  while  he  was  still  up, 
Dilly  Knox,  Page  and  Adcock  were  among  those  who  often 
plajed.  After  tlie  Annual  Founder’s  Feast  at  King's  Maynard 
always  insisted  upon  wh«U  he  called  a “ Rubber  in  Piam 
Meinonam  He  was  a iTspcctable  but  not  a great  player, 
always  ready  to  take  a risk  for  the  sake  of  trying  out  some 
new  idea.  Knox  was  fin'>t-ratc  in  his  kno\/ledge  of  the  game 
and  the  lie  of  the  cards,  and  was  equally  ready  to  take  risks,  but 
he  had  a touch  of  genius  in  him,  and  his  risks  more  often  led  to 
triumph  than  to  crashes.  Maynard  thought  out  the  situation 
with  liis  usual  lightning  celerity,  and  he  used  to  say,  when  the 
players  took  a little  time  to  jvmder  upon  the  situation : “ What 
do  you  think  about  when  you  play  bridge  f Professor  Adcock 
recalls  an  occasion  when  Knox  played  an  unusually  surprising 
card  which  caused  even  Maynard  to  pause.  The  same  thought 
leapt  simultaneously  to  the  minds  of  the  other  three,  and  they 
turned  upon  him  in  chorus,  What  do  you  think  about  when  you 
play  bridge,  Maynard  ? ” 

* Provost  of  Kings,  4905- 1918  ; Piovost  ol  Kton,  1918  1938. 


F 


66  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

When  he  could  not  get  a four,  in  later  days,  he  sat  in  Combina- 
tion Room  playing  demon  patience.  I once  challenged  him  on 
the  ground  that  it  lacked  skill  and  therefore  interest.  He  replied 
that  it  was  all  the  better  recreation  for  that,  but  that  it  had  its 
excitement.  It  is  a form  of  patience  which  comes  out  seldom, 
and  he  knew  how  often  on  average.  He  played  to  succeed  twice 
running.  His  interest  in  the  theory  of  probability  made  him 
intrigued  to  see  if  this  double  event  occurred  with  the  proper 
frequency.  He  went  so  far  as  to  organise  others  in  the  Combina- 
tion Room  to  play  and  to  count  their  failures  and  successes.  He 
even  mentioned  “ thrice  running  ’’ ; but  I do  not  recollect  if  he 
claimed  to  have  achieved  it. 

There  was  at  this  time  an  undergraduate  at  King’s,  two  years 
senior  to  Maynard,  who  carried  one  forward  on  the  road  of 
higher  education  further  than  one  could  be  led  at  Eton.  He  was 
a young  man  of  cherubic  countenance,  who  had  been  to  school 
at  Dulwich.  In  his  early  years,  when  he  came  to  read  the  plays 
of  Shakespeare,  and  when  he  proceeded  to  read  the  Greek  drama- 
tists, and  to  read  Homer,  the  beauty  of  the  poetry,  the  humanity 
of  the  chara('ters,  and  the  pattern  and  unity  ofcthe  compositions, 
gripped  and  possessed  him,  and  became  for  him  then,  as  they 
continued  to  be,  the  most  important  facts  of  existence.  This  was 
Mr.  J.  T.  Sheppard,  Not  only  was  his  soul  fired  by  these  ancient 
beauties,  but  he  felt  a strong  inner  impulse  to  convey  his  impres- 
sion, to  explain  and  expound,  and  to  make  others  share  his  secret 
understanding.  Mr.  A.  H.  Smith  (now  Warden  of  New  College) 
remembers  his  early  enthusiasms  at  Dulwich. ^ 

Mr.  Sheppard  has  retained  his  cherubic  lineaments  during 
the  long  years  of  his  academic  career ; but  his  hair  grew^  prema- 
turely white,  and,  by  a slight  affectation,  he  made  it  a habit  to 
stump  about  leaning  on  a stick,  as  though  oppressed  with  his 
years.  As  one  watched  him  in  his  vivid  conveisation,  he  seemed 

* Dulwiili  at  this  lirnr  srrms  to  ha\e  bren  remarkably  fertile  in  the  production 
of  men  of  sironi’ly  iiidixidiial  genius.  In  one  year  there  were  three,  of  each  of  whom 
severally  it  could  be  said  that,  in  type  of  mind  and  in  mode  of  self-expression,  they 
were  utterly  unlike  any  other  human  being,  namely  Mr.  P.  Ci.  Wodehousc,  Mr. 
J.  T.  Sheppard  (Piovosl  of  King’s  College  Cambridge),  and  Mr.  A.  H.  Smith  (Warden 
of  New  College  Oxford).  Mr.  P.  G.  Wodchouse  has  conveyed  his  exquisite  fancies 
to  the  million.  But  the  smaller  number  who  ha\e  sat  at  the  feet  of  Mr.  Sheppard, 
and  the  still  smaller  number  who  have  listened  to  the  narrative  style,  or  studied  deeply 
in  the  philosophical  work,  of  Mr.  A.  H.  Smitli,  will  agree  that  these  two  have  an 
originality  not  less  intense  than  that  of  Wodehouse.  And  a few  years  before,  Dulwich 
produced  Mr.  G.  E.  Mt>ore,  the  originality  of  whose  genius  was  as  strongly  marked 
as  that  of  the  others. 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  67 

at  one  moment  still  the  charming  young  schoolboy,  at  another 
the  venerable  sage.  At  times  — was  it  possible  ? - - one  had  the 
impression  of  the  two  qualities  magically  fused.  That  surely  was 
as  it  should  be  in  one  who  sought  to  convey  the  essence  of  Greek 
art,  which  itself  so  perfectly  fused  the  passionate  susceptibilities 
of  youth  with  the  wisdom  of  the  ages. 

He  was  an  admirable  performer  on  the  stage.  His  under- 
graduate rendering  of  Pcisthetairos  in  Aristophanes’  Birds  in  1903 
is  still  remembered.  The  Granta  wrote : “ Mr.  Sheppard  was 
splendid  throughout.  His  energy  never  flagged  ; we  heard  every 
word  he  said ; he  made  all  his  points  with  most  telling  force ; 
above  all  he  was  inimitably  funny.  In  the  scene  with  the  Priest 
he  was  at  his  best.  The  way  in  which  Pcisthetairos  attempted  to 
join  seriously  in  the  ceremony  of  sacrifice,  but  v\as  overcome  first 
by  his  sense  of  humour,  and  then  by  boredom,  bi  ought  the  house 
down.”  He  became  a classical  tutor  at  King’s.  Over  many 
years  he  has  also  devoted  his  gifts  to  productions  of  Gieek  plays, 
of  vihich  the  most  famous  was  that  of  Aeschylus's  trilogy  on 
Orestes  in  1919.  This  ushered  in  a very  notable  era  of  theatrical 
productions  in  Cambridge. 

There  was  a touch  of  the  dramatic  in  his  manner  of  lecturing. 
Besides  the  lectures  intended  for  classical  specialists,  he  gave 
some  of  a more  general  charactei  which  dicw  large  audiences. 
As  time  went  on,  he  became  less  restrained  in  his  mannerisms 
and  was  led  on  to  use  violent  gestures  in  his  intense  anxiety  to 
convey  his  vision.  He  waved  his  arms  and  tore  his  whit#‘  locks. 
I once  saw  him  in  a lecture  on  the  Frogs  of  Aristophanes  to  a 
society  of  staid  grammarians  at  Oxford,  leap  across  the  room  with 
astonishing  agility.  Ciiti  *s  objected  that  it  was  not  the  spirit 
of  the  Greek  authors,  but  his  own,  that  he  was  interpreting.  But 
is  there  any  other  way  of  conveying  an  aesthetic  impression  save 
by  distilling  it  through  one’s  own  personality  ? Sheppard  felt 
that  he  mitst  adopt  every  device  that  lay  to  hand,  in  order  to 
kindle  his  listeners’  imagination.  His  lifelong  assiduity  in  his 
missionary  task,  using  in  these  later  days  the  medium  of  the 
wireless  with  success,  has  been  of  notable  value  in  keeping  classical 
beauties  alive  in  the  minds  of  this  generation. 

As  an  undergraduate,  he  was  also  an  accomplished  speaker 
at  the  Union  and  became  President  in  the  term  before  Maynard. 
He  was  a dashing  figure.  In  his  postgraduate  year  he  had  a 
hansom  cab  on  charter  to  convey  him  from ‘place  to  place  in 


68  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

Cambridge  at  his  pleasure.  He  and  Maynard  soon  became 
intimates.  Their  friendship  was  destined  to  ripen  through  a long 
period  of  co-operation  as  Fellows  of  King’s  College. 

Maynard  had  been  barely  a month  at  King’s  when  he  wrote 
this  letter  to  Swithinbank  : 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  B.  W.  Swithinbank^  ijth  November  igo2 

()  SwiTHIN,  SwiTIIIN, 

The  reasons  that  I have  not  wiit  to  thee  is  because  I am  too  full 
for  words. 

I wanted  to  see  you  when  I came  down  to  wall,  and  then  you  and 
Macmillan  (to  whom  give  my  love)  go  for  leave  like  a pair  of  so- 
called  owls. 

1 have  nevei  exijoyed  myself  so  much  before,  Sir;  and  if  I write 
I must  needs  gush,  and  gush  in  a letter  is  damned  offensive. 

I have  very  much  increased  my  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  this 
world  and  even  more  of  the  next.  ♦ 

I know  nice  people.  I have  bought  over  fifty  books  this  term.^ 
I row  hard  every  afternoon  without  exception,  ai^d  1 never  go  to  bed. 

What  more  can  heaven  offci  me  ? 

Take  my  programme  Iasi  Sunday  evening. 

Immediately  after  hall  1 went  to  a 'J^iinity  Essay  Society  and 
heard  a most  biillkint  satire  on  Christianity.^  From  there  I went  to 
an  informal  philosophical  debating  society  of  inteiesting  people 
where  I stayed  till  nearly  twelve;  1 then  wont  to  see  Monty  James 
where  I stayed  till  one ; from  there  I went  on  to  another  imin  with 
whom  I talked  till  half  past  four.  At  half  past  seven  I got  up  and 
read  the  Lesson  in  Chapel.3  T had  four  hours’  work  that  morning, 
and  rowed  half  .1  course  in  the  afternoon.  In  the  evening  I went  as  a 
visitor  to  the  Political  Society  to  hear  a paper  on  the  Jesuits  . . . 
and  so  on. 

I am  going  dowm  for  St.  Andretv’s  Day. 

* Latci  in  the  teirn  he  bought  a inai?mficcnL  edition  of  Vergil  in  three  volumes 
whiih  belonged  originally  to  Adam  .Smith,  and  a set  ol  about  twenty  Llzevirs. 

^ This  was  a pap<i  by  Lytton  Strachey,  entitled  “ Clolloquies  of  Senrab,”  which 
created  a sensation.  “ .Senrab  ” was  the  backward  spelling  of  Barnes,  a bi other  of 
the  Bishop  of  Birmiiigham,  who  had  previously  read  a paper  on  “ Intellectual  Snobs  ”, 
directed  against  Strachey  and  his  fiionds. 

3 Maynard  read  again  on  the  following  Sunday,  by  invitation.  “Cranage, 
the  Sorleys,  and  others  have  spoken  of  M.’s  reading  in  Chapel  yesterday.  He  seems 
to  have  pitched  his  voice  successfully  and  to  have  been  heard  well.  Sorley  tells  F. 
[Mrs.  Keynes]  that  he  Jjears  M.  is  the  most  popular  man  in  King’s.”  (Extract  from 
Dr.  Keynes'  diary). 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  69 


The  President  of  the  Union  has  put  me  on  the  paper  to  speak 
next  Tuesday, 


Ever  yours. 


J.  M.  Keynhs 


2 


Towards  the  end  of  his  first  term,  Maynaid,  responding  to  a 
knock  on  his  door,  found  in  the  passage  two  men  who  weie 
regarding  him  for  the  first  time.  One  was  lean  and  tall,  the 
other  leaner  and  taller  and  with  moustache.  They  introduced 
themselves : Mr.  Leonard  Woolf,  Mr.  T-.ytton  Strachey.  They 
had  come  to  pay  a call.  lie  bade  them  enter.  They  drew  him 
out  in  conversation,  and,  we  may  be  sure,  he  n'spoiKh^d  leadily. 
After  a time  they  rosi'  to  go,  and,  muttering  something  about  the 
hope  that  h^  would  come  and  lia\c  tea  with  them  and  meet  the 
philosopher,  Mr.  G.  E.  Moore,  they  took  their  leave.  Very  nice, 
rather  flattering,  but  surely  a little  in)stenous, 

'^’here  used  to  exist  at  that  time  in  Gauibridge  a club  of 
considerable  age,  which  was  known  as  “ The  Society  It  was 
founded  in  the  eighteen- twenties  by  F.  I).  Maurice  and  his  fiiends. 
Tennyson  and  Haliam  w’cie  numibers  together. 

Another  name  was  on  llie  dooi  : 

I linc^cr’d  ; all  within  was  noi^e 
Of  soiujs,  and  clapping  hands,  and  b<)>s 
That  crash'd  the  glass  and  beat  (he  flooi  ; 


\\  here  <^nce  wc  held  debate,  a band 
Of  youthful  flit  lids,  uii  mind  and  ait 
And  labou» , and  the  changing  mart. 

And  all  the  l<am<'work  of  the  laiid.^ 

The  society  was  vc'ry  skilful  in  its  choice  of  nieml)crs;  William 
Harcourt  and  Clerk-Maxwell  had  both  belonged,  and,  at  a period 
shortly  before  that  in  which  we  are  interested,  Mriitland,  Walter 
Raleigh,  McTaggart,  Alfred  Whitehead,  and  Lowes  Dickinson. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  tsventieth  century  the  number  of  under- 
graduate members  was  very  small,  barely  exceeding  six.  But  the 
young  dons  who  had  been  members  continued  to  take  part,  and 
other  young  men  made  a point  of  going  up  from  London  rather 
frequently  to  attend  its  meetings.  The  Society  was  a secret  one. 
But  there  have  been  a number  of  references  to  it  in  English 
literature,  and,  since  it  was  remarkably  successful  in  pieserving 

' In  Memormn,  canto  87. 


70  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

its  characteristics  throughout  the  generations,  it  may  be  well  to 
cite  two  descriptions  of  it. 

Dean  Merivale  was  a member  at  the  same  time  as  Tennyson. 
He  was  elected  in  1830  immediately  after  taking  his  B.A.  degree. 
He  writes  * of  the  autumn  of  1 830,  as  follows  : . 

Most  happily  for  myself,  I fell  just  at  that  time  into  a society  of 
able  and  studious  youths  of  my  own  standing  with  most  of  whom  I 
had  little  if  any  acquaintance  before  but  with  whom  I soon  became 
familiar,  and  Jived  in  constant  *ntercourse  of  the  utmost  intimacy ; 
men,  many  of  whom  I felt  to  be  much  my  superiors  in  ability,  from 
most  or  all  of  whom  I derived  knowledge  and  insight  into  men  and 
things,  yet  with  all  of  whom  I could  more  or  less  hold  my  own  place 
and  feel  myself  appreciated  to  my  satisfaction.  Many  of  this  set 
have  continued  to  be  my  close  friends  through  life  ; several  of  them 
survive ; from  some,  the  inevitable  changes  and  chances  of  life  have 
separated  me,  far  and  long.  But  1 am  sure  we  all  have  ever  felt  and 
still  feel  a certain  freemasonry  of  sympathy  which  ])inds  us  implicitly 
to  one  another  as  brethren  of  one  family.  Our  common  bond  has 
been  a common  intellectual  taste,  common  studies,  common  literary 
aspirations,  and  we  have  .ill  felt,  I suppose,  th^ support  of  mutual 
regard  and  perhaps  some  mutual  flattery.  AVe  soon  grew,  as  such 
youthful  coteries  generally  do,  into  immense  self-conceit.  We  began 
to  think  that  we  had  a mission  to  enlighten  the  w'orld  upon  things 
intellectual  and  sj^iritual.  We  h.ad  established  principles,  especially 
in  poetry  and  metaphysics,  and  set  up  certain  idols  for  cur  worship. 
Coleridge  and  Wordsworth  were  our  regular  divinities,  and  Hare 
and  Thirl  wall  were  regarded  as  their  prophets ; or  rather  in  this 
celestial  hierarchy  1 should  have  put  Shakespeare  at  the  top  of  all, 
and  I should  Iiave  found  a lofty  pedestal  for  Kant  and  Goethe.  It 
was  with  a vague  idea  that  it  should  be  our  function  to  interpret  the 
oracles  of  transcendental  wisdom  to  the  world  of  Philistines,  or 
Stumpfs,  as  we  designated  them,  and  from  time  to  time  to  call  forth 
from  this  world  the  great  souls  who  might  be  found  capable  of  sym- 
pathizing witli  them,  that  we  piqued  ourselves  on  the  .name  of  the 
“ Apostles  ” a name  given  us,  as  w^e  were  sometimes  told,  by  the 
envious  and  jeering  vulgar,  but  to  which  we  presumed  that  we  had  a 
legitimate  claim,  and  gladly  accepted  it.  We  lived,  as  1 said,  in 
constant  intercourse  with  ,ne  another,  day  by  day,  meeting  over  our 
wine  or  our  tobacco ; but  every  Saturday  evening  we  held  a more 
solemn  sitting,  when  each  member  of  the  society,  about  twelve  in 
number,  delivered  an  essay  on  any  subject,  chosen  by  himself,  to  be 

* Auiobiogtaphy  of  Ck'iiles  Merivale , ed,  Judith  Anne  Merivale,  privately  printed 
Oxford  1898,  pp.  98-9.  Publ.  Arnold,  London,  1899,  pp.  80-81. 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  71 

discussed  and  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  whole  number.  Alas ! 
alas  ! what  reckless  joyous  evenings  those  were.  What  solemn  things 
were  said,  pipe  in  hand ; how  much  serious  emotion  was  mingled 
with  alternate  bursts  of  laughter  ; how  everyone  hit  his  neighbour, 
intellectually,  right  and  left,  and  was  hit  again,  and  no  mark  left  on 
either  side;  how  much  sentiment  was  mingled  with  how  much 
humour ! Who  is  the  poet  who  says,  and  how  aptly  he  might  have 
said  it  of  us  i*  — 

Witty  as  youthful  poets  in  their  wine ; 

Bold  as  a centaur  at  a feast ; and  kind 

As  virgins  that  were  ne’er  beguiled  with  love. 

The  style  of  our  lucubrations  may  be  illustrated  pt'ihaps  by  a 
saying  of  one  of  our  profound  philosophei  s,  Jack  Kemble* : “ The 

world  is  one  great  thought,  and  I am  thinking  it.” 

Much  of* this  description  coincides  exactly  with  the  testimony 
of  those  who  were  members  seventy  years  later. 

Henry  Sidgwick  was  elected  in  185&  7.  His  own  account  is 
published  in  A Menioh. 

I became  a member  of  a discussion  society  — old  and  possessing 
historical  traditions  — which  went  by  the  name  of  “ The  Apostles  ” 
When  I joined  it  the  number  of  membeis  was  not  large,  and  there  is 
an  exuberant  vitality  in  Met  iv ale’s  description  to  which  I recall 
nothing  corresponding.”  [Mid-Victorian  solemnity  evidently 
descended  upon  the  Society  for  a time.]  “ But  the  spirit,  I think, 
remained  the  same,  and  gradually  this  spirit  — at  least  as  1 appre- 
hended it  — ab.-^  *rbi d and  dominated  me.  I can  only  desc ribe  it  as 
the  spirit  of  the  pursuit  of  truth  with  absolute  devotion  and  un- 
reserve by  a group  of  intimate  friends,  who  were  perfectly  frank  with 
each  other,  and  indulged  in  any  amount  of  humorous  sarcasm  and 
playful  banter,  and  yet  each  respects  the  other,  and  when  he  dis- 
courses tries  to  learn  from  him  and  see  what  he  sees.  Absolute 
candour  was  the  only  duty  that  the  tradition  of  the  society  enforced 
No  consistency  was  demanded  with  opinions  previously  held  — 
truth  as  we  saw  it  then  and  there  was  what  we  had  to  embrace  and 
maintain,  and  there  were  no  propositions  so  well  established  that  an 
Apostle  had  not  the  right  to  deny  or  question,  if  he  did  so  sincerely 
and  not  from  mere  love  of  paradox.  The  gravest  subjects  were 
continually  debated,  but  gravity  of  treatment,  as  I have  said,  was 
not  impo.sed,  though  sincerity  was.  In  fact  it  w^as  rather  a point  of 
the  apostolic  mind  to  understand  how  much  suggestion  and  in- 
struction may  be  derived  from  what  is  in  form  a jest  - even  in 
dealing  with  the  gravest  matters. 


72  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

1 had  at  first  been  reluctant  to  enter  this  society  when  I was  asked 
to  join  it.  I thought  that  a standing  weekly  engagement  for  a whole 
evening  would  interfere  with  my  work  for  my  two  Triposes.  But 
after  I had  gradually  apprehended  the  spirit  as  I have  described  it, 
it  came  to  seem  to  me  that  no  part  of  my  life  at  Cambridge  was  so  real 
to  me  as  the  Saturday  evenings  on  which  the  apostolic  debates  were 
held  ; and  the  tie  of  attachment  to  the  society  is  much  the  strongest 
corporate  bond  which  I have  known  in  life.  I think,  then,  that  my 
admission  into  this  society  and  the  enthusiastic  way  in  which  I came 
to  idealise  it  really  determined  or  revealed  that  the  deepest  bent  of 
my  nature  was  towards  the  life  of  thought  — thought  exercised  on 
the  central  problems  of  human  life.” 

A more  elaborate  description  of  the  procedure  and  constitution  is 
also  to  be  found  in  the  Memoir  * on  pages  29-32. 

Strarhey  and  Woolf  had  come  to  vet  Maynard.  He  was 
elected  in  February  1903,  and  his  membership  oi*  the  Society 
during  his  undergraduate  days  had  a profound  influence  on  his 
w'hole  life. 

What  were  the  characteristics  of  the  Society,  wdiich  macle  so 
deep  an  impression  on  distinguished  men  at  widely  different 
dates?  Most  notable  was  the  sense  of  brotherhood  and  the 
utmost  intimacy  ’’  into  which  its  members  fell  quite  naturally 
and  at  once.  By  what  elixir  did  it  succeed  in  preserving  this 
happy  feeling  of  comradeship  through  so  many  decades?  We 
must  accept  this  characteristic  as  a fact,  for  the  testimony  is 
unanimous.  In  the  light  of  it,  it  is  easy  to  sec  why  the  Society 
had  such  influence.  To  be  able  easily  and  openly  to  discuss 
profound  questions,  such  as  harass  and  perplex  the  spirit  of  young 
men,  with  others  of  the  same  age  or  son)cw  hat  more  experienced, 
hand-picked  for  their  intelligence  and  suitability  of  character, 
must  needs  be  a godsend.  One  could  unburden  one’s  soul ; 
one  could  bring  one’s  most  secret  thoughts  out  into  the  open ; 
one  could  subject  them  to  wise  and  friendly  comment.  Quicker 
progress  was  possible  in  that  way  towards  the  achievement  of 
inner  harmony.  One  was  brought  into  contact  too  with  the 
problems  of  others,  which  might  be  new  and  strange  and  open 
out  great  vistas  of  thought. 

In  most  undergraduate  societies  of  purely  intellectual  purpose, 
there  is  a tendency  for  members  when  on  the  carpet  in  front  of 
the  fireplace  to  think  that  they  must  shine.  (Cambridge,  surely, 

* Bv*'Mrs  Sidgwick  and  Mr.  Arthur  Sidgwick. 


AET  1^2]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  73 

cannot  be  totally  different  from  Oxford  in  this  respect.)  Erudi- 
tion may  be  brought  out  for  display,  designed  to  impress  the 
audience  with  the  speaker's  extensive  knowledge.  This  would  not 
be  well  regarded  by  the  Society.  Any  learned  reference  not  arising 
spontaneously  and  necessitated  by  the  train  of  thought,  was  con- 
sidered to  be  in  bad  taste.  Or  again,  in  other  soc  ieties,  argumenta- 
tion may  be  the  strong  point.  It  is  up  to  X,  having  enunciated  a 
certain  proposition,  to  display  his  forensic  ability  in  defending  it 
against  the  onslaughts  of  Y ; all  ingenuities  ol  dialectic  aie  en- 
couraged, even  although  X is  beginning  to  suspect  that  he  has 
the  worse  case.  This  was  not  in  the  tradition  of  the  Society.  It 
was  understood  that  as  soon  as  a member  began  to  feel  doubtful 
of  his  own  opinion,  he  would  express  his  doubts  frankly,  and 
perhaps  retreat  from  it. 

The  primary  <iim  of  the  discussion,  which  cv/'r\  inenibcr  had 
steadily  before  his  mind,  was  to  achieve  the  truth  To  this  end 
all  egoisms  had  to  be  suppressed.  The  subjects  discussed  weie 
always  of  a fundamental  kind,  touching  those  central  opinions 
which  make  the  man.  Tennyson's  list  is  comprehensive;  Meri- 
vale  tends  to  stress  ttanscendental  philosophy.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  twentieth  century  thcie  was  emphasis  on  philosophy, 
although  no  doubt  the  discussion  would  not  normally  have 
become  involved  in  purely  technical  questions.  It  seems  evident 
that  Sidgwick’s  expcricin  c in  the  Society  was  not  unconnected 
with  his  religious  doubts.  But  by  Maynard’s  time  problems 
connected  with  orthodox  creeds  had  receded  into  the  background. 

Theie  is  one  point  on  which  the  testimony  is  not  quite 
undivided.  Some  hold  that  a prime  article  of  faith  was  unwoildli- 
ness,  so  that  a member  v ould  become  disinc  lined  to  take  pains 
and  encompass  maiiocuvies  diiected  towards  a successful  worldly 
career  for  himself.  Others  aie  inclined  to  be  doubtful  on  this 
point.  The  coterie,  known  as  “ Bloomsbury  ”,  of  which  we  shall 
hear  more,,  was  undoubtedly  unwoildly  in  its  outlook  and  was 
strongly  influenced  by  some  who  had  been  members  of  the  Soc  iety. 
It  would  be  wrong,  however,  to  argue  from  characteristics  of 
Bloomsbury  to  the  nature  of  the  Society  itself. 

The  truth  is  probably  akin  to,  but  subtly  different  fiom,  that 
expressed  by  the  cieed  of  unworldliness.  For  the  Society,  truth 
was  the  paramount  objective,  and  absolute  intellectual  integrity 
the  means  of  achieving  it.  There  was  certainly  a feeling  that 
Apostles  were  different  from  ordinary  mortalsi  For  purposes  of 


74  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

practical  life  an  Apostle  had  also,  of  course,  to  be  an  ordinary 
mortal ; and  it  might  be  that  he  would  set  himself  to  plan  and 
contrive  in  order  to  win  position  and  influence  in  the  world. 
That  was  a matter  of  indifference  to  the  Society,  not  of  reproach. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  an  Apostle  did  none  of  these  things,  but 
devoted  himself  unostentatiously  and  with  small  worldly  means 
to  some  line  ol  thought  or  to  achieving  an  inner  spiritual  harmony, 
that  was  excellent.  As  regards  the  ambitious,  the  saving  clause 
would  be  that  at  heart  they  should  be  seeking  to  promote  what 
they  honestly  believed  to  be  a good  cause. 

Maynard  fell  in  part  into  both  categories.  He  certainly  did 
not  map  out  his  life  in  its  early  stages  in  a way  that  would  exploit 
to  the  full  the  power,  which  his  brilliant  gifts  gave  him,  to  achieve 
a great  worldly  position.  On  the  other  hand  he  can  by  no  means 
be  des(  ribed  as  altogether  unworldly.  He  desired  to  influence 
the  couise  of  events.  He  was  not  unmindful  of  valuable  contacts 
and  woildly  ways  and  means  for  achieving  desired  results.  He 
went  beyond  what  the  Bloomsbury  coterie  thought  fitting  for 
someone  who  sought  the  good  life.  There  may  have  been  a 
certain  ambivalence  in  Maynard  in  this  respect^ some  inner  forte 
which  prevented  him  al  times  from  adopting  all  the  expedients 
which  would  come  natuiallv  to  a worldly  man,  in  the  full  sense 
of  that  word,  in  his  endeavour  to  attain  his  ends.  This  ambi- 
valence may  have  hCicl  important  consequences  at  certain  crucial 
points  in  his  career.  If  we  hold  that  the  austere  canons  of  the 
Society  were  in  this  respect  some  hindrance  — and  it  may  be 
deemed  that  humankind  was  the  loser  from  any  inhibitions  he 
may  have  had  in  advancing  himself  — we  must  always  remember 
that  by  his  contact  with  the  Society  his  faith  and  vision  were 
sustained.  And  it  is  these,  rather  than  any  worldly  success  in 
Britain,  thit  have  contributed  to  his  world- wide  influence. 

Of  his  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  Society  to  him  there  can 
be  no  doubt.^  He  always  observ  ed  the  1 ule  of  secrecy  \Yith  extreme 
strictness,  although  he  was  by  no  means  a person  who  rejoiced  in 
exaggerating  rules  of  “ oflicial  secrecy  beyond  their  usefulness. 
Many  close  friends  were  totally  unaware  of  the  existence  of  the 
Society.  It  would  not  be  an  exaggeration  of  language  to  say  that 
it  served  him,  in  some  respects,  in  place  of  a religion.  The  sense 
of  brotherhood,  the  communion  of  souls,  the  mission  to  enlighten 
the  world  on  things  intellectual  and  spiritual  ”,  “ the  established 

* * Cf.  refs,  on  p.  113  below. 


AET.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  75 

principles  ” making  Truth  the  supreme  objective  of  man,  the 
canons  of  integrity  and  sincerity,  the  relative  antiquity,  certain 
rites  carefully  observed  at  meetings,  the  use  of  words  with  mean- 
ings not  understood  by  the  uninitiated,  all  responded  to  certain 
spiritual  cravings  whic  h orthodox  churches  seek  to  satisfy. 


3 

Henry  Sidgwick  died  of  cancer  in  1900  at  the  age  of  sixty-two. 
Other  philosophers  of  eminence  were  already  established  in 
Cambridge.  We  have  seen  Maynard  bidding  his  IHends  to  go 
to  the  lectures  of  McTaggart.  Alfred  Whitehead  and  Bertrand 
Russell  coming  together  at  this  time,  but  separating  later,  were 
engaged  on  those  great  philosophical  speculations  which  will,  no 
doubt,  outlive  other  Cambridge  philosophical  productions  of  our 
period.  In  1902  a new  star  had  recently  risen  above  the  horizon, 
in  the  person  of  Mr.  G.  E.  Moore.  For  the  time  he  had  much 
the  greatest  influence  on  the  intellectual  youth.  Undergraduate 
members  of  the  Society  chose  their  own  new  members -- wdth 
most  meticulous  care.  It  was  usually  thought  w’cll  to  introduce 
them  to  the  discriminating  inspection  of  G.  E.  Moore,  bel()rc 
deciding  to  put  them  forward.  Moore  was  a paramount  influence 
in  the  Society.  But  it  is  time  to  desist  from  prying  into  the  affairs 
of  that  august  body,  for  its  members  wished  them  to  be  secret,  and 
those  wishes  should  be  respected,  so  far  as  our  purp(»sc  allows. 
Moore's  influence  in  ('ambridge  was  of  much  wider  ambit,  and 
as  such  wc*  may  consider  it.  His  views  on  moral  ejuestions  were 
well  known  there  some  time  before  the  publication  Principia 
iLthica. 

This  appeared  in  the  autumn  of  1903.^ 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  B.  Switkinbank,  ylh  October  igo^ 

I have  just  been  reading  Moore’s  Principia  Eihica,  which  has 
been  out  a few  days  - — a stupendous  and  entrancing  work,  the 
greatest  on  the  subject. 

Whence  came  his  influence?  There  was  his  style.  Readers 
of  his  works  are  familiar  with  the  fascinating,  indeed  spell-binding, 

* Students  of  Mr.  Forster’s  Life  of  Lowes  Dickinson  should  note  tliat  the  appear- 
ance oi Principia  Ethica  is  there  misdated  (p.  iii). 


76  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

way  in  which,  with  twists  and  turns  and  elaborate  convolutions  of 
phrase,  with  plentiful  use  of  italics,  he  succeeds  in  conveying 
thought,  clear,  distilled,  purified,  its  very  quintessence  finally 
expressed  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  his  meaning.  May- 
nard once  told  me  that  he  thought  that  Moore  had  carried  the 
use  of  ordinary  speech  as  far  as  it  would  ever  be  possible  to  carry 
it,  in  conveying  clear  meaning.  For  still  greater  precision  one 
would  have  to  proceed  by  mathematical  symbols.^ 

And  then  there  was  the  man  himself.  His  devotion  to  truth 
was  indeed  palpable.  In  argument  his  whole  frame  was  gripped 
by  a passion  to  confute  error  and  expose  confusion.  To  watch 
him  at  work  was  an  enthralling  experience.  Yet,  when  the  heat 
of  argument  died  down,  he  was  the  mildest  and  simplest  of  men, 
almost  naive  in  unphilosophical  matters.  He  was  friendly  to  the 
young,  approaching  them  on  natural  and  equal  terms*.  Despite 
his  naiveti,  he  seemed  to  have  understanding.  In  human  ques- 
tions he  had  none  of  that  intolerance  or  ciabbedness  which  so 
often  marks  the  academic  man  of  thought.  He  was  happv^  and 
at  case  in  discussions  beyond  his  proper  range.  There  was  no 
c|uestion  of  his  being  shocked,  and  the  young  IT.id  no  inhibitions 
in  his  presence.  When  Strache>  made  one  of  his  subtle,  perhaps 
cynical,  perhaps  shocking,  ulleraiices,  the  flavour  of  which  even 
his  clever  undergraduate  friends  did  not  at  first  appreciate  at  its 
full  value,  Moore  was  seen  to  be  shaking  with  laughter.  If  the 
veneration  which  his  young  admirers  accorded  him  almost 
matched  that  due  to  a saint,  wc  need  not  think  that  they  were 
mistaken.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  doctrines  set  forth  in 
Principia  Ethica  are  infallible. 

If  questioned  on  Moore’s  nmst  important  contribution  to 
ethics,  his  admirers  — outside  the  ranks  of  professional  philo- 
sophers— arc  apt  to  recall  his  doctrine  that  “good”  is  an 
attribute,  the  meaning  of  which  is  indefinable.  It  may  be  held 
that  Moore  should  not  be  regarded  as  the  originator  of  this 
doctrine.  He  himself  makes  generous  acknowledgment  in  the 
Principia  to  Henry  Sidgwick.  Sidgwick’s  arguments,  however,  are 
not  so  pointed  as  Moore’s,  nor  collected  into  so  formidable  a battle 
array ; they  are  to  be  found  scattered  about  in  his  large  volume  on 
The  Methods  of  Ethics ; and  his  style  is  altogether  less  readable. 
I remember  Alfred  Whitehead  telling  me  that  he  had  read 
The  Methods  of  Ethics  as  a young  man  and  found  it  so  stodgy 

' Cf.  A Tieaiise  on  Probabthtyt  byj.  M.  Keynes,  p.  19. 


AET.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  77 

that  he  had  been  deterred  from  ever  reading  any  book  on  ethics 
since.* 

This  same  doctrine  was  very  familiar  in  the  lecture  rooms  of 
Oxford  when  I was  an  undergraduate  there  (1919-1922).  It 
was  sometimes  enunciated  in  the  proposition  that  the  good  can 
only  be  defined  in  terms  which  pre-suppose  an  understanding  of 
what  it  is  We  need  not  consider  whether  this  ri9:marole  is 
more  or  less  precise  than  Moore’s  ‘‘  indefinable  The  argu- 
ments used  in  Oxford  to  sustain  this  ])osition  resembled  fairly 
closely  those  which  appear  in  Ptimipia  Ethica,  I’hey  were  pro- 
pounded by  an  important  group  of  philosophers,  who  had 
broken  away  from  the  older  Oxford  tradition  of  idealism,  and 
had  been  strongly  influenced  by  J.  Cook-Wilson.  It  is  not  clear, 
however,  what  progress  had  already  been  made  in  Oxford  in  the 
development  of  this  line  of  thought  when  Pibuipi  - P'fhica  appeared. 

The  doctrine  of  indefinability  has  the  consequence  tliat 
decisions  about  what  is  good  depend  on  direct  intuition  in  each 
particular  case.  Tlie  interpretation  given  in  Oxfoid  to  this 
consequence  was  widely  different  from  that  in  Cambridge.  In 
Oxford  — no  doubt  owing  partly  to  the  special  attention  paid  to 
Aristotle’s  Elhics  - - great  reliance  was  placed  on  what  may  be 
called  traditional  moiality,  embodying  the  intuitions  of  wise  me*n 
through  the  ages.  In  Cambridge  the  doctrine  of  intuition  was 
interpreted  - anyhow  by  those  disciples  w^lio  wcvt  to  be  lor  many 
years  the  intimate  intellcctuaJ  companions  of  Keynes  — as  giving 
fairly  complete  Uc^mkc  to  judge  <ill  tilings  aiu^w. 

There  was  another  important  dilfercnce  lietweeii  the  Oxford 
doctrine,  as  it  developed  in  these  vears,  and  that  ol‘  the  P)imipia, 
Oxford  philosophers  produced  for  the  eclilication  of  their  pupils 
a seconcl  “ indefinable  ”,  namely  duty.  The  arguments  which 
they  used  in  defence  of  the  indefinability  of  duty  w^ere  similar 
to  those  used  in  the  case  of  the  good  The  trouble  about 
these  indefinables  is  that,  once  you  accept  one  of  them,  they 
tend  to  proliferate.  In  my  own  person  I have  never  been  con- 
vinced by  the  arguments  used  by  Moore  or  by  those  used  at 
Oxford. 

The  independent  status  given  to  the  concept  of  duty  by 
Oxford  philosophers  also  fostered  an  outlook  very  different  from 

* Not  having  at  that  time  a specialist  inteiesi  in  the  development  of  Clambridge 
thought  on  these  topics,  I did  not  reply  then,  as  I ceitaiiily  should  now  Hut  surel)- 
you  have  read  Mr.  Moore’s  book 


78  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

that  of  the  Cambridge  intellectuals.  In  one’s  general  view  of 
things,  when  going  out  into  the  world  to  face  the  practical 
problems  of  life,  it  makes  an  enormous  difference  to  one’s  point 
of  view  whether  one  holds  that  one  must  judge  one’s  own 
actions  according  to  whether  or  not  they  tend  to  promote  some 
ultimate  good  which  one  may  have  in  mind,  or  supposes  oneself 
limited  on  every  hand  by  a number  of  hard  and  fast  duties, 
intuitively  recognised  as  such.*  This  was  relevant,  as  we  shall 
sec,  to  the  great  issues  of  conscience  presented  by  the  First  World 
War ; Keynes  himself  thought  it  his  duty  to  assist  the  wai  effort, 
but  many  of  his  greatest  friends  did  not,  and  this  had  further 
consequences. 

Moore  had  indeed  a chapter  (cli.  5)  containing  a discussion 
on  moral  obligation.  During  the  First  World  War  some  friends, 
many  of  whom  belonged  to  this  (Cambridge  period,  founded  a 
Club  entitled  “ The  Memoir  Club  Two  papers  read  to  this 
Club  by  Keynes  have  been  published.^  In  one  of  these  memoirs 
(“  Early  Beliefs  ”)  he  gave  a full  account  of  Moore’s  inflqence. 
Referring  to  the  chapter  on  moral  obligation  he  wrote : 

There  was  one  <'hapter  in  the  Pnneipia  of  wWch  we  took  not  the 
slightest  notice.  We  accepted  Moore’s  religion,  so  to  speak,  and 
discarded  his  morals.  Indeed,  in  our  opinion,  one  of  the  greatest 
advantages  of  his  religion  was  that  it  made  morals  unneccssaiy  — 
meaning  by  religion  ” one’s  attitude  towards  oneself  and  the 
ultimate,  and  by  “ morals  ” one’s  attitude  towards  the  outside  world 
and  the  intermediate. 

Moore’s  disciples  were  not  altogether  to  blame  for  this  attitude. 
He  wrote  this  chapter  r<ithci  in  the  style  of  one  making  a con- 
cession to  what  was  necessary,  and  as  though  he  was  not  deeply 
interested.  It  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the  ilaming  advocacy  of 
the  other  chapters.  Furthermore  the  aigument  is  somewhat 
halting,  and  it  is  evident  that  he  had  not  thought  deeply  about 
the  difficulty  of  relating  the  “ good  ”,  at  which  we  should  aim, 
to  conduct  in  the  practical  affairs  of  life.  There  is  in  fact  a very 
great  gap  in  his  treatise ; one-half,  or  more,  of  what  is  important 
for  practical  ethics  is  omitted. 

* In  d Idler  work.  Ethics  (Home  University  Library,  1912),  Moore  appears  to 
embrace  the  view  that  duty  is  also  an  indefinable.  (See  page  173.)  I am  grateful 
to  Sir  David  Ross  for  railing  my  attention  to  this  development.  It  had,  I believe, 
no  influence  on,  if  indeed  it  wds  noticed  by,  the  intellectuals  with  whom  we  arc 
concerned. 

^ Two  AlemoirSy  by  J.  M.  Keynes.  Publ.  by  Rupert  Hart  Davies,  1949. 


AKT.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  79 

While  the  doctrine  of  an  indefinable  good  seemed  to  give 
emancipation  from  earlier  preconceptions,  positive  direction  to 
one’s  thoughts  on  ethical  matters  was  to  be  found  in  Moore’s 
chapter  on  “ The  Ideal  ”,  Keynes’  memoir  should  be  read  in 
conjunction  with  this  chapter.  Here  Moore  set  out  what  things 
are  good  in  themselves.  His  list  is  a short  one,  containing  two 
items  — “ the  enjoyment  of  beautiful  objects  ”,  and  “ the 
pleasures  of  human  intercourse  ”,  There  is  no  need  to  quarrel 
with  these  items ; they  are  both  of  them,  undoubtedly,  supreme 
goods.  But  what  a world  is  left  out ! As  Keynes  obsewed  in  his 
memoir : “ it  is  remarkable  how  oblivious  he  managed  to  be  of 
the  qualities  of  the  life  of  action,  and  also  of  the  jjattern  of  life 
a whole 

Looked  at  from  a broad  point  of  view,  Moore's  list  of  “ goods  ” 
is  cloistered  and  anaemic.  This  is  not  to  deny  that  it  may  have 
been  of  great  value  in  its  own  place  and  time.  It  challenged 
his  readers  to  a revaluation  ; it  made  a tlcan  sweep  of  the  past ; 
it  stimulated  the  young  to  new*  thoughts  and  enthusiasms ; it 
caused  an  intellectual  ferment ; it  held  out  the  promise  of  a new 
world  of  ideas  to  be  conquered.  The  artist  who  created  beautiful 
objects  was  put  on  a pillar  of  pre-eminence.  Most  philosophers, 
while  having  their  chapters  on  aesthetics,  seem  merely  to  be 
paying  lip  service  to  it.  And  how  much  worse  is  the  case  of 
important  men  of  affairs  in  rcgaid  to  artistic  matters,  w^iih  their 
patronising  philistinism. 

It  may  have  been  well,  also,  at  that  time  to  locus  tillcntion 
upon  the  problems  of  human  relations  and  love.  I'he  severities 
of  Victorian  morality  in  placing  all  the  stress  on  what  was 
expedient,  on  what  was  iiv^ccssary  to  sustain  an  ordcied  society, 
seemed  in  danger  of  losing  sight  of  the  purpose  of  society.  If  a 
home  was  unhappy  — as  many  Victorian  homes  were  — it  was 
necessary  to  use  the  stiff  upper  lip,  and  endure  sorrows  for  the 
good  of  the*  social  order.  But  what  was  this  good  ? It  was 


> The  pleasure  of  peisonal  human  intercourse  may  be  regarded  as  compnsed  by 
tlic  general  cxpjessioii,  Love,  in  the  broadest  sense  ol  that  word.  I a eii  his  tieatment  of 
love  is,  however,  unsatisfactory  — and  rather  curious.  He  emphasises  the  inijKirlant  e 
of  corporeal  qualities ; it  is  a prime  evil  for  anyone  to  hr  in  a state  of  admiiiiig  tnn- 
templation  of  what  is  ugly ; on  the  other  hand,  h**  is  apt  to  speak  of  “ lust  ” as  sonn  - 
thing  to  be  condemned.  By  putting  his  doctrines  together,  one  would  reach  the 
conclusion  that  one  of  the  most  evil  things  that  can  happen  in  the  world,  is  to  he 
carnally  attracted  by  an  ugly  person.  This  is  rather  hard  lines  on  a large  minority 
of  the  human  rare  ! The  matter  would  be  made  even  worse  ifitliat  person  had  faulty 
artistic  taste. 


8o  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

certainly  well  to  remind  this  great  materialistic  society,  which 
was  so  harsh  in  its  conventional  morality,  that  after  all  the  object 
of  all  these  rules  and  conventions  was  precisely  to  achieve  happy 
personal  relations.  A great  revaluation  was  indeed  due ; but  it 
was  important  that  in  this  revolution  of  ideas  we  should  not 
degenerate  into  a mere  attitude  of  “ do  as  you  like  ”,  but  should 
have  our  standards  maintained  by  the  unworldliness  of  Moore’s 
chapter  on  “ The  Ideal  ”,  of  which  Keynes  said  : “ I know  no 
equal  to  it  in  liteiatuie  since  ^^lato,  and  it  is  better  than  Plato 
because  it  is  quite  free  from  fancy.  It  conveys  the  beauty  of  the 
literalness  of  Moore’s  mind,  the  pure  and  passionate  intensity  of 
his  vision,  imfancilul  and  undressed  up.”  ‘ 

It  must  be  noticed,  h()\vc\  ei,  that  the  piactical  value  of  Moore’s 
concentration  on  these  particular  forms  of  “good”  depended 
upon  what  I ha\e  called  the  presuppositions  of  Harvey  Road, 
namely  the  security  and  good  order  of  the  British  Empire.  That 
institution  was  maintained  hv  many  pet)plc  acting  in  accordance 
with  moral  laws,  the  philosophical  justification  of  which  they 
may  not  have  undcistcjod  and  would  not  have  found  explained 
in  Moore.  Within  the  framework  of  a secure  Society  thus  kept  in 
being,  it  was  possible  and  desirable  to  make  new  experiments, 
and  to  set  one’s  eyes  fixedly  upon  certain  ideals,  too  long  neglected. 
It  might  not  matter  if  certain  other  principles  necessary  for  the 
maintenance  of  an  ordered  society  were  temporarily  c^vcrlookcd. 

But  let  there  be  a threat  to  this  sccuritv.  Where  find  in  the 
Frtrtdpia  a guide  to  duty  f Moore’s  book  only  comprises  a frag- 
ment of  the  moral  stor\.  II  his  ideals  are  to  retain  their  place, 
they  must  be  integrated  into  a wider  philosophy,  which,  while 
doing  honour  to  them,  would  have  something  more  adequate  to 
say  about  the  nature  and  rationale  of  the  social  obligations  on 
which  a civilised  society  rests. 

In  his  memoir  Maynard  gives  a critical  analysis  of  the  state 
of  mind  of  himself  and  his  friends  in  their  youth. 

We  were  amongst  the  last  of  the  Utopians,  or  meliorists  as  they 
arc  sometimes  called,  who  believe  in  a continuing  moral  progress  by 
virtue  of  which  the  human  rare  already  consists  of  reliable,  rational, 
decent  people,  influenced  by  truth  and  objective  standards,  who  can 
be  safely  released  from  the  outward  restraints  of  convention  and 
traditional  standards  and  inflexible  rules  of  conduct,  and  left,  from 


Op  Lit  p.  94 


AET.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  8i 

now  onwards,  to  their  own  sensible  devices,  pure  motives  and  reliable 
intuitions  of  the  good.^ 

In  short,  we  repudiated  all  versions  of  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  of  there  being  insane  and  irrational  springs  of  wickedness  in  most 
men.  We  were  not  aware  that  civilisation  was  a thin  and  precarious 
crust  erected  by  the  personality  and  tlie  will  of  a very  ff‘w  and  only 
maintained  by  rules  and  conventions  skilfully  put  across  and  guile- 
fully preserved.  We  had  no  respect  for  traditional  wisdom  or  the 
restraints  of  custom.  We  lacked  rcvrrcncc,  as  I.awreiice  - observed 
and  as  Ludwig  3 with  justice  also  used  to  say  - for  everything  and 
everyone.  It  did  not  occur  to  us  to  respect  the  extraordinary  accom- 
plishment of  our  predecessors  in  the  ord(*ring  of  life  (as  it  now’  seen.s 
to  me  to  have  been)  or  tlie  elaborate  framew’ork  which  they  had 
devised  to  protect  this  order.  Plato  said  in  his  Laws  that  one  of  the 
best  of  a set  of  good  law’?  w'ould  be  a law  forbiddum  .niy  young  man 
to  enquire  which  of  them  are  right  or  \vrong,  though  an  cjld  man 
remarking  any  defect  in  the  law’s  might  coinmunicatc  this  observa- 
tiop  to  a ruler  or  to  an  etpial  in  ye^irs  when  lu'  >oung  man  was 
present.  That  was  a dictum  in  which  we  should  h.x\’c  been  unable  to 
discover  any  point  or  significance  whatever.  As  ( ause  and  conse- 
quence of  our  general  state  of  mind  we  completely  misunderstood 
human  nature,  including  our  own.  The  lationalily  w'hkh  we 
attributed  to  it  led  to  a superficiality,  not  only  of  judgment,  but  also 
of  feeling. 

The  comment  is  just.  But  it  may  be  tliat  the  imperfection  of 
their  view  was  due  not  only  to  this  neglect  of  certain  character- 
istics of  human  nature,  but  also  to  defea  ts  in  their  philosophical 
bible. 


4 

Among  the  undergraduates  w'ho  arri\ed  at  Trinity  in  tiu 
year  1899,  five  soon  became  intimate  friends.  When  Maynard 
went  up  three  years  later,  he  found  them  there,  a close  circle, 
and  was  adopted  by  tlicin.  Ihcsc  men  were  Ihoby  Stephen, 
Clive  Bell,  Saxon  Sydney-Turncr,  Leonard  ^Voolf  and  Lytton 

* It  has  been  pointed  out  10  me,  1 judge  rorrcttly,  that  lhc.se  friends  did  not 
actually  attribute  these  high  qualitie.s  to  tlie  majorhv  of  mankind ; there  was  in  fart 
a good  deal  of  disdain  for  that  majority.  Neverthtless  Maynard  is  light  in  holding 
that  their  ethical  code  — or  lack  of  code  — was  only  defen.siblc  on  the  assumption 
that  these  qualities  were  in  fact  present.  ^ 

» D.  H.  Lawrence.  ^ Luciwig  Wiilgerhstcin. 


G 


82  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

Strachey.  Very  soon  after  their  arrival  they  founded  the  “ Mid- 
night Society  ’’  which  gathered  at  twelve  on  Saturday  evenings 
and  proceeded  to  read  some  serious  play.  An  arduous  beginning 
to  a lifelong  intimacy  ! 

Thoby  Stephen,  son  of  Leslie  Stephen,  was  the  most  mundane 
of  the  party.  He  came  of  a cultivated  home,  was  well  read,  and 
liked  to  talk  to  these  friends  about  books ; he  was  good-looking, 
had  sporting  interests,  and  formed  a link  with  the  wider  world 
of  Trinity.  He  had  cjualities  which  made  him  greatly  beloved ; 
but  he  was  entirely  unselfconscious  about  his  charms ; he  was 
spontaneous  in  his  friendship,  and,  by  his  poise  and  self-confidence, 
a pillar  of  strength  in  this  intensely  intellectual  and  somewhat 
introspective  group.  He  was  known  to  them  as  “ the  Goth 
Of  the  other  four,  the  closest  to  Thoby  was  perhaps  Clive  Bell, 
“ a gay  and  amiable  dog’\  as  Maynard  calls  him,*  less  oppressed 
by  the  cares  of  huinanity  than  the  others,  full  of  life  and  sparkle, 
an  unending  souixc  of  cheerful  gossip.  He  was  deeply  interested 
in  the  visual  arts  and  this  provided  a link  between  him  and  Luton 
Strachey.  Saxon  Sydney-Turner,  “ the  quietist was  the  most 
scholarly.  He  was  a cl<issic,  and  later  perpetrated  more  than  one 
ol‘  those  incredible  toin.s  de  force,  the  Latin  Epilogues  performed 
after  the  production  of  a play  by  Plautus  or  Terence  at  his  old 
school,  Westminster.  He  shared  with  Leonard  Woolf  the  view 
that  human  prospects  were  \ery  black.  He  was  of  amiable  dis- 
position, and  a statinch  friend,  and  continued  to  be  an  intimate  and 
highly  valued  member  of  this  group,  indispensable  in  any  reunion. 
His  life  lias  been  spent  in  the  British  Treasury.  Leonard  Woolf 
was  an  ardent  spirit,  then,  as  always,  the  fearless  champion  of  the 
oppressed.  In  political  opinions  he  was  probably  the  most  Icft- 
w'ard  of  the  party.  Of  sensitive  and  discriminating  intelligence, 
and  interested  in  art  and  literature  as  well  as  in  politics,  he  was  a 
delightful  intellectual  companion. 

liytton  Strachey  was  one  of  a family  of  thirteen  (ten  surviving 
infancy).  He  was  delicate  in  his  childhood,  and  remained  so. 
His  school  education  was  fragmentary ; yet  at  nineteen  he  seemed 
in  many  respects  more  mature  than  most  Cambridge  freshmen. 
Two  features  of  his  youth  stand  out.  One  was  his  incessant  read- 
ing from  early  years.  His  mother  was  devoted  to  Elizabethan 
literature,  and  she  began  to  read  Shakespeare  and  other  Eliza- 
bethan playwrights  aloud  to  him  when  he  was  barely  three,  and 

* Op,  cit,  p.  81. 


AET.  10-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  83 

at  an  early  age  she  introduced  him  to  French  literature.  She  was 
a woman  of  remarkable  gifts,  a friend  of  Huxley,  George  Eliot, 
Henry  Maine  and  other  illustrious  men  and  women  of  the  lime. 
She  was  also  interested  in  painting  and  music.  Modern  ideas 
began  to  infiltrate,  for  we  learn  that,  before  the  end,  Roger  Fry 
was  an  occasional  visitor.  And  there,  in  the  bosom  of  the  family, 
in  addition  to  all  the  others,  was  the  young  cousin  Dui.can  Grant, 
in  the  charge  of  Lady  Strachey,  hh  paternal  aunt,  while  the  Grants 
were  in  India.  Duncan's  jjainting  activity  began  early. 

The  second  characteristic  was  the  incessant  fun  and  laughter. 
To  use  a word  not  dignified  but  appropriate,  Lytton  seenn  d to 
his  sisters  to  be  giggling  fairly  contiiiuoush  fioni  the  age  of  thu'e 
to  nineteen.  There  were  the  habitual  jokes  of  childhood,  fanciful 
nicknames,  endless  conversations  in  dog  FreiK  h,  a(  ting,  ragging, 
playing  jokes  on  visitors,  not  prat  tical  but  subtle  and  disconcerting. 
The  round  ol  fun  was  hectic  and  delirious,  and  Tiylton\  inventive- 
ness seemed  endless. 

Being  delicate  he  was  sent  with  two  or  three  other  boys  to 
coach  with  Mr.  Forde  at  Poole  Harbour,  He  had  his  youthful 
adventure ; routine  was  broken  by  a trip,  first  to  Gibraltar,  and 
then  through  Egypt  to  the  Cape,  when  he  was  twelve  years  old  ; 
there  was  some  connection  between  this  trip  and  the  journeyings 
of  his  father,  Sir  Richard  Strachey,  w'ho  w.is  a great  Indian 
Administrator,  Lytton  had  t('  tiavel  alone  with  his  older  sister 
Dorothy  (Madame  Bussy)  to  Gibraltar.  She  recalls  that  his 
father  gave  instructions  that,  if  anything  went  amiss  in  the  Bav 
of  Biscay,  they  were  not  to  spare  the  champagne.  Sitting  together 
in  the  cabin  they  obeyed  this  instruction  to  the  letter.  Thus 
Lytton  received  his  initiation  even  earlier  thm  Maynard  ! 

Having  returned  for  a time  to  Mr.  Foide,  he  was  sent  by  his 
mother  to  Abbotsholme,  a school  in  Lancashire,  conducted  on 
modern  lines,  somewhat  under  the  influence  of  Edward  Carpentei. 
It  appears  ’that  this  did  not  suit  him.  He  was  withdrawn  after 
a term  and  proceeded  to  Leamington  College,  where  he  spent 
between  three  and  four  years.  This  was  a small  school,  chosen 
for  that,  but  run  on  more  conventional  lines  than  Abbotsholme. 
It  may  be  well  that  his  energies  were  not  overtaxed  there,  and 
that  his  reading  continued  apace. 

His  next  port  of  call  was  Liverpool  University,  to  wdiich  he 
went  at  the  age  of  seventeen.  This  was  due  to  the  presence  of 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  whose  influence  was  important.  It  is  pleasant 


84  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

to  think  of  the  mutual  regard  felt  for  one  another  by  these  two 
fine  geniuses  of  literature.*  We  may  be  sure  that  Raleigh’s 
beautiful  dry  humour  was  not  lost  upon  Strachey.  Raleigh 
was  in  the  van  of  a shift  of  critical  values.  Cultivated  persons 
of  the  late- Victorian  peiiod  were  no  doubt  well  read  in  our  earlier 
masterpieces,  but  they  were  inclined  to  be  over-zealous  in  their 
admiration  of  the  Victorian  pontiffs ; they  gave  the  classics  their 
meed  of  praise,  but  with  an  inflection  which  implied  that  the 
older  masters  were  a little  archaic,  of  the  past,  hardly  really 
significant  for  cunent  problems,  having  been  superseded  by  the 
Victorian  giants,  with  their  greater  depth  and  more  spiritual 
vision.  Raleigh  served  to  restore  a sense  of  proportion,  and 
Strachey  in  this  sense  may  be  regarded  as  his  disciple. 

But  he  was  not  officially  studying  literature  at  Liverpool ; his 
subject  was  history ; and  he  often  expressed  indebtedness  to 
Professor  Mdckay.  lie  was  introduced  also  to  social  problems, 
being  taken  round  the  woist  parts  of  LKcrpoo]  by  Dr.  Stookes 
with  whom  he  lodged.  He  made  a lilelong  fiiend  in  Luiffsdcn 
Barkway,  since  Bishop  ol  St.  Andrews.  Although  they  were 
bound  by  ties  ol  mutual  arnitv,  their  intellectflal  points  of  view 
were  not  coincident  The  Bishop  has  written  a valuable  treatise 
on  The  Creed  and  its  Cicdentiah.  Strachey  at  one  time  thought  of 
writing  a Life  of  Christ,  and  is  recalled  as  having  given  as  his 
reason  for  abandoning  the  project  “ that  it  was  impossible  to  find 
evidence  foi  his  actual  existence 

His  mother  wished  him  to  go  to  Balliol  College,  Oxford.  The 
Balliol  authorities  were  :>omewhat  perplexed  by  the  oral  examina- 
tion. Mr.  Sliachan-Davidson  told  Lady  Strachey  that  he  would 
piobably  be  happier  at  a smaller  college.  So  she  sent  him  instead 
to  Trinity  College,  Cambiidge 

His  debut  there  was  not  an  unqualified  success.  Weird  in 
appearance  and  in  his  manner  of  speaking,  paradoxical  in  the 
substance  of  what  he  seemed  to  be  saying,  in  so  far  as  it  was 
possible  to  make  head  or  tail  of  it,  he  was  an  object  of  some 
doubt  in  the  minds  ol  many  Trinity  undergiaduatcs  To  balance 
this,  he  quickly  gathered  round  him  the  circle  of  interesting  friends 
whom  I have  already  named.  And  senior  men,  such  as  Mr.  Des- 
mond MacCarthy  and  Mr.  E.  M.  Forster,  were  not  slow  to  be 

* Cf  Letters  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  edited  b>  Lady  Raleigh,  ii,  479-82  In  the 
letter  of  13th  May  jqiji  Raleigh  suggested  that  Strachey  should  write  the  Life  of 
Queen  Victoiia 


AET.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  85 

impressed  by  his  fine  intellect.  A word  should  be  said  about  his 
voice,  which  was  a subject  of  general  and  unfavourable  comment, 
being,  on  first  acquaintance,  his  most  noticeable  characteristic.  It 
broke  late,  and,  to  the  end  of  his  life,  it  went  into  a high  pitch  on 
the  emphatic  tern^ination  of  a sentence.  The  complaint  was  that 
it  was  extremely  affected,  even  being  used  by  him  to  make  an 
utterance  sound  impressive  which  had  nothing  else  to  commend 
it.  On  the  whole,  the  charge  of  affectation  is  probably  false. 
The  intonation  W'as  certainly  very  peculiar,  but  this  was  a family 
characteristic.  The  brothers  and  sisters  shared  it  with  him,  and 
were  often  recognised  as  Stracheys  by  total  strafigers  in  remote 
parts  of  the  globe.  It  need  not  be  denied,  however,  that  he 
occasionally  exaggerated  his  native  inflections  for  effect.  I’herc 
are  recollections  of  his  uttering  whole  sentences  in  a monotoiious 
falsetto  which  was  certainly  not  natural  to  him.  It  may  well 
have  been  done  to  tease.  We  must  not  forget  that  he  had  spent 
nineteen  years  in  making  the  other  members  of  the  family  laugh, 
and^there  was  no  reason  why  the  atmosphere  ol  Triniiy  should 
stanch  his  capacity  for  fun.  But  there  was  more  to  it  than  this. 
In  his  own  thoughts  he  wished  to  bring  about  a revolution  in 
many  existing  values.  Thought  and  feeling  are  conveyed  not 
only  by  grammatical  forms  but  also  by  the  inflections  used  in 
utterance.  By  choosing  to  stress  those  elements  in  a sentence 
which  are  not  usually  stressed,  and  conversely,  one  may  produce 
in  the  mind  of  a hearer  a revaluation  of  old  truisms.  AVhen  one 
wishes  to  persuade  men  to  think  or  act  dilfercntly  — a hard  task 
veritably  — no  artifice  is  to  be  despised.  There  was  much  more 
meaning  in  his  curious  in^  ersions  of  stress  than  the  undergraduates 
of  Trinity,  even  his  friends,  at  first  understood.  As  evidence  of 
this  we  may  adduce  the  fact  that  in  due  course  these  peculiar 
intonations  were  adopted  by  a number  of  clever  people,  and  used 
by  them  as  an  instrument  to  achieve  their  own  quite  dilfcrcnt 
effects.  The  Strachey  voice  became  the  “ Bloomsbury  voice  ”, 
and  was  used  by  many  who  had  never  even  heard  Strachey  speak. 

The  influence  of  Strachey  at  Trinity  was  not  at  once  out- 
standing ; his  comment  on  life  was  subtle,  and  the  flavour  of  it 
an  acquired  taste.  His  mode  of  asserting  his  own  point  of  view 
was  a peculiar  one.  He  often  sat  silent  in  a corner,  letting  the 
ripples  of  general  conversation  flow  over  him.  I’hen  suddenly 
he  piped  up,  perhaps  in  a high  squeak.  He  might  say  some- 
thing of  devastating  pointedness,  which  quife  clearly  confuted 


86  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

and  confounded  them  all.  Or  he  might  say  something  which  they 
hardly  understood.  Or  what  he  said  might  on  the  face  of  it  be 
so  profoundly  shocking,  that  they  could  scarcely  believe  that  his 
words  were  to  be  taken  seriously.  Perhaps  they  were  a joke ; and 
yet,  perhaps,  he  might  mean  them  seriously.  . There  could  be 
something  terrifying  about  his  silences.  There  was  no  longer  the 
ceaseless  flow  of  gaiety  of  his  boyhood  days.  He  brooded,  and 
polished  his  thoughts.  He  still  had  a great  sense  of  the  ludicrous. 
But  it  was  distilled  now  and  expressed  in  sudden  sallies. 

His  friends  did  not  at  first  apprehend  that  he  was  a man  of 
outstanding  genius.  He  stayed  in  Cambridge  for  six  years,  and 
before  he  went  down  his  influence  had  become  paramount 
among  the  intellectual  you*h.  When  Maynard  arrived  in  1902 
Strachey  was  not  yet  at  his  zenith.  If  Maynard  fell  for  him  at 
once,  that  was  by  virtue  of  his  own  clever  judgment*;  he  always 
recognised  the  best  when  he  saw  it,  with  a lightning  discernment. 
They  also  had  certain  affinities,  which  it  is  necessary  to  the  story 
of  Maynard  to  analyse.  Lytton  was  unusually  mature,  foi*  an 
undergraduate,  in  his  literary  and  at tistic*  judgments ; Maynard 
had  such  intc‘rests.  Hitheito  he  had  not  had  fer  stimulus  more 
than  might  come  liom  a culti\ated  home  and  from  Eton.  This 
was  not  enough  to  satisfy  his  intense  spiiit.  He  had  a passionate 
nature,  and  a erasing  foi  something  high,  for  something  perfect. 
But  he  could  not  be  satisfied  easily.  He  was,  first  and  foremost, 
a very  clever  man,  a deep  thinker,  a logician.  A literary  man, 
however  accomplished,  who  could  not  see  the  force  of  a good 
argument,  might  win  his  affection,  but  would  not  do  as  a regular 
companion  for  him  at  this  stage.  He  needed  someone  who  could 
sufficiently  understand  his  menial  processes. 

I.ytton  was  such  a person.  This  is  not  always  appreciated 
by  his  readers.  Some  are  beguiled  by  his  poetic  vision,  by  his 
fun  and  by  the  impressionistic  touches  in  his  historical  writing, 
into  supposing  that  he  was  an  intellectual  dilettante,  fundament- 
ally frivolous.  This  was  by  no  means  the  case.  He  was  a man 
of  ccmsiderable  intellectual  and  logical  ability.  His  father  had 
scientific  interests,  including  meteorology.  He  was  a Fellow  of  the 
Royal  Society  and  Royal  Medallist.  He  was  President  of  the 
Meteorological  Society;  this  was  not  merely  an  ornamental 
position ; he  took  an  active  part  in  disc  ussing  with  its  experts 
the  details  of  their  activities.  He  and  Lytton  used  to  write 
letters  to  each  other  about  mathematical  problems.  At  Cambridge 


AEi.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  87 

Lytton  became  deeply  interested  in  the  pliilosophies  of'  McTaggart 
and  Moore.  There  was  a time  when,  in  planning  Eminent  Vie- 
torians^  he  thought  of  including  a series  of  studies  of  Victorian 
scientists,  with  the  intention  of  raising  these  scientists  in  the  popu- 
lar esteem  by  as  much  as  he  depressed  Manning  and  Arnold.  H' 
Maynard  wanted  to  grapple  with  some  exacting  philosophical 
problem,  Lytton  could  come  at  least  part  of  the  way  .vitli  him. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  story ; we  must  go  deeper.  Lytton 
was,  in  the  world  of  ideas,  a revolutionary.  He  wished  to  over- 
throw, to  make  a clean  sweep,  to  value  all  things  anew,  and  this 
appealed  to  something  very  deep  in  Maynard.  Just  at  this 
juncture  Lytton,  both  bec  ause  he  was  three  years  senior  and  had 
had  an  unconventional  education,  had  progressed  further  than 
Maynard  in  the  quest  for  fresh  values.  At  the  jnoment  he  was  in 
a position  to  help  Maynard  towards  satisfying  his  cra\ings  (or  a 
new  vision  of  heaven  and  earth. 

On  the  whole,  nineteenth-century  England  remaiiK^d  under 
the  #way  of  the  romantic  movement,  of  Goethe  and  of  that  extra- 
ordinary galaxy  of  men  of  genius  who  wrote  in  English  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  century.  The  great  Victorians,  for  all  their  vitality 
and  originality,  their  remarkable  twists  and  turns  of  form  and 
feeling,  remained  under  the  spell.  The  old  vein  was  worked  hard 
and  exploited  in  new  ways.  This  could  not  go  on.  Hv  the  end 
of  the  century  the  time  was  ripe  for  a great  revolt. 

Strachey’s  early  immersion  in  the  Elizabethans  and  the  French 
work  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  was  iniportant ; 
important  also  was  the  fact  that  these  were  his  private  enthusiasms. 
For  Keynes  at  Eton,  th<  older  masters  were  part  of  what  was 
venerable  and  established ; Burke's  oratory  was  the  old,  old  ” 
stuff.  For  one’s  private  adventure,  one  went  ahead  of  one’s 
schoolmasters  and  admired  Browning  and  Meredith.  In  culti- 
vated London  drawing-rooms  the  position  was  reversed.  There 
the  latest  Victorian  masters  were  the  revered  idols ; to  suggest 
that  one’s  soul  might  be  better  nourished  by  reading  Gibbon 
was  indeed  astonishing. 

Strachey’s  revolt  was  not  only  literary.  The  religious  question 
was  central.  Many  of  the  great  Victorians  no  longer  accepted 
dogmatic  theology.  But  had  they  faced  the  implications  of  rejec- 
tion ? They  were  worried  and  ambivalent.  Were  they  also  a little 
hypocritical?  On  these  deep  questions  one  must  be  absolutely 
honest,  truthful,  straightforward.  If  a clean'  sweep  had  to  be 


88  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

made,  let  it  be  made.  There  was  the  consequential  question  of 
values  and  moral  sentiments.  Here  again  one  found  ambi- 
valence, obscurity,  fear  to  face  the  issues.  Yes ; it  was  time  to 
make  a clean  sweep  and  to  build  again  in  the  light  of  one’s 
deepest  convictions.  At  this  point  Moore  stretched  out  a helping 
hand,  with  his  idealism  unequalled  “ since  Plato  ”,  and  “ better 
than  Plato  because  it  is  quite  free  from  fancy 

All  this  responded  to  something  fundamental  in  Keynes.  His 
mind  was  highly  intolerant  of  anything  ambiguous  or  makeshift. 
Confronted  with  an  intellectual  patchwork,  with  an  old  idea  and 
a new  idea  incongruously  held  together,  he  could  not  fail  to  detect 
the  incongruity  with  his  quick  penetration,  and  was  left  with  a 
feeling  of  irritation  and  disgust.  He,  like  Strachey,  craved  for  the 
clean  sweep,  the  bold  new  idea,  the  crisp  and  lucid.  And  then 
he  deeply  loved  excitement  and  adventure.  This  revaluation  — 
where  would  it  lead?  What  new  vistas  would  be  opened  to 
view  ? And  he  had  a streak  of  iconoclasm.  To  tease,  to  flout, 
finally  perhaps  to  overthrow,  venerable  authorities  — that  was  a 
sport  which  had  gi  eat  appeal  for  him.  And  so  it  happened  that  he 
found  in  this  clever  Trinity  undergraduate  soiBCone  who  shared 
many  of  his  deepei  tendencies  ; here  indeed  was  an  ideal  friend. 

The  Collected  Edition  of  Strachey’s  works  consists  of  six 
volumes.  ‘ Of  these,  posteiitv  may  well  attach  the  least  value 
to  Ertwunt  Vnlonaiis^  in  which  he  gave  full  rein  to  his  satire  and 
sense  of  fun.  Since  it  was  through  thi^  book  that  he  made  his 
impact  on  a wider  public,  there  arc  still  too  many  who  judge 
him  by  it.  Turning  to  the  other  five,  an  admirer  might  claim, 
not  with  dogmatism  but  with  confidence  that  he  could  not  easily 
be  refuted,  that  one  would  have  to  look  back  to  Hazlitt  to  find 
work  of  comparable  distinction  in  the  field  of  biographical  and 
literary  hellcs  leitres.  But  one  who  witnessed  all  the  ferment  of 
those  days  might  have  expected  a greater  achievement  by  the 
whole  group,  something  as  important  for  the  coming  .time  as  the 
Romantic  Movement  had  been  a hundred  years  earlier.  It  has 
not  so  turned  out. 

Keynes  also  had  within  him  the  seeds  of  rebellion.  Although 
his  intellect  reached  its  full  development  when  he  was  very  young, 
his  creative  impulse  came  to  maturity  slowly.  In  those  days  he 
did  not  know  that  he  was  to  be  an  economist.  In  the  end  his 
influence  extended  further  than  Strachey’s,  for  the  products  of  his 

‘ Publ.  Chatto  & Windus,  1948. 


AET.  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  89 

brain  have  become  the  everyday  thoughts  of  many  people  all  over 
the  globe.  He  at  least  has  carried  the  banner  far  afield.  The 
ultimate  outcome  of  Keynes’  work  is  not  yet  decided.  All  we 
can  now  say  is  that  he  is  decidedly  in  the  running  for  the  prize 
of  having  had  a permanent  influence  “ on  all  the  framework  of 
the  land  This  is  a paradox,  for  social  questions  were  not  prom- 
inent in  the  discussions  of  that  group.  His  wish  tc»  challenge 
authority  was  indigenous  to  him ; but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
impulse  to  build  all  things  anew  was  sustained  and  strengthened 
by  the  society  of  these  Cambridge  friends. 

There  is  one  final  characteristic  of  Stracliey  which  must  be 
mentioned.  This  lanky,  angular  creature,  a comic  almost,  with 
his  weird  voice,  and  clever,  critical,  mocking  mind,  had  in  the 
highest  measure  the  power  of  personal  sympathy.  He  had  a 
delicate  understanding  of  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  heart.  Even 
with  a close  friend  it  is  not  always  easy  to  confide  ; there  is  often 
some  barrier,  some  fear  — perhaps  of  shocking,  perhaps  of  saying 
soraetfiing  that  will  disturb  the  friendship  in  an  unforeseeable 
way.  With  Strachey  there  could  be  no  fear  of  this  sort.  One 
could  be  sure  that  whatever  one  said  would  be  received  with 
perfect  understanding.  There  could  be  no  embarrassment,  no 
awkwardness.  As  it  were  to  compensate  for  his  sharpness  and 
satire  in  general  company,  and  on  intellectual  topics,  he  was 
gentleness  itself  as  a confidant.  Whence  came  this  quality  ? 
Was  it  all  that  fun  and  jest,  w^hich  kept  his  relations  with  his 
family  so  easy  and  gayi*  Confucius  held  that  one's  power  to 
maintain  harmonious  relations  in  one’s  own  family  precisely 
measured  one’s  power  to  do  so  in  a wider  world.  All  the  Strachey 
family  had  some  gift  of  syiapathy.  But  no  dc.ubt  we  must  ascribe 
Lytton’s  high  measure  of  it  to  his  own  peculiar  genius,  and  associ- 
ate it  with  those  powers  of  interpretation  and  penetration  whit  h 
we  find  in  his  literary  criticism  and  in  his  study  of  historical 
personages.  - 

The  reader  may  wonder  how  this  could  have  been  important 
for  Maynard,  who  was  so  successful,  so  competent  in  all  his  own 
affairs,  so  much  a master  of  life,  so  little  in  need  of  external 
support.  This  is  only  to  look  at  the  surface.  From  the  outside 
he  seemed  all  urbanity,  suavity,  self-possession.  He  appeared  to 
some  to  be  almost  inhuman,  so  mechanical  was  the  precision 
with  which  he  achieved  every  objective.  Yet  underneath  that 
urbanity  he  had  an  ardent,  passionate  nature.  * He  had  a great 


90  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902-5 

fund  of  affection  which  he  wished  to  lavish  and  have  reciprocated. 
But  his  other  gifts,  which  raised  him  to  a superior  plane,  became 
in  the  course  of  time  in  some  sense  a barrier.  The  ordinary  run 
of  mortals  had  so  much  respect  for  his  powers,  that  it  was  not  easy 
to  be  on  simple  terms  of  human  fellowship  with  him.  This  problem 
hardly  arose  at  Eton.  At  school  a boy,  however  clever,  provided 
that  he  is  not  gauche  or  egoistic,  remains  one  of  the  family  among 
his  contemporaries  in  his  house.  Maynard  was  very  companion- 
able, and  the  schoolboy  spiri*^  of  easy  friendship  permeated  his 
daily  intercourse.  At  the  University  distinctions  begin  to  appear. 
The  clever  set  becomes  slightly  apart.  One  may  begin  by  rowing 
in  the  College  boat,  but  that  has  to  be  given  up  for  the  sake  of  work 
and  other  pressures  on  one’s  time.  A young  man  like  Thoby 
Stephen,  with  his  abundant  charm  and  easy  fellowship,  would  dis- 
charge and  rece  ive,  in  the  course  of  his  daily  college  doings,  any 
amount  of  spontaneous  affection.  In  such  good  comradeship,  the 
cravings  of  nature  received  satisfaction,  the  person  in  question 
being  scarcely  aware  of  what  was  going  on.  A very  clever  young 
man  slightly  different,  inevitably  slightly  aloof,  lacks  something 
that  others  have  in  their  easy  companionship.^  But  if  he  be  of  an 
affectionate  nature,  as  Maynard  was,  the  lack  sets  up  internal 
reactions ; (me’s  feelings  become  just  a little  intense  and  perhaps 
overwrought.  One  concentrates  a stronger  stream  of  affection 
upon  one’s  particular  friends.  Then  if  anything  goes  wrong  with 
the  friendship,  there  may  be  acute  distress.  Under  the  polished 
surface  of  urbanity,  his  emotions  ran  strong. 

'riius  from  time  to  time  the  woes  of  the  world  descended 
upon  him,  and  his  spirit  would  languish.  It  was  therefore  of  very 
great  value  to  have  such  a confidant  as  Strachey,  who  was  not 
in  the  least  frightened  of  him  and  who  had  a unique  power  of 
sympathetic  understanding.  To  intellectual  companionship  was 
added  a deeper  communion  of  spirit. 

Maynard  did  not  forget  his  older  friends ; he  strove  to  main- 
tain his  close  relationship  with  S within  bank ; he  wrote  to  him 
frequently,  paid  occasional  visits  to  Balliol  and  was  eager  that  he 
should  be  appreciated  by  his  new  friends.  Strachey  was  greatly 
impressed  by  him.  At  Balliol,  Swithinbank’s  most  interesting  con- 
temporary was  J.  D.  Beazley,  and  he  reeiprocated  by  introducing 
Beazley  to  Maynard.  Although  no  great  intimacy  arose,  Maynard 
showed  a touching  desire  to  bring  this  friend  of  Swithinbank 
into  his  circle  also.  There  arc  often  references  to  Beazley  in  his 


AET  19-22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  91 

letters  to  Swithinbank  — has  he  won  such-and-such  a prize? — 
what  are  his  interests  now  ? Swithinbank  (accompanied  by  Dun- 
das,  who  stayed  at  Harvey  Road)  brought  Beazley  on  a visit  to 
King’s  in  the  autumn  of  1904.  Incidentally,  in  the  course  of  the 
visit,  Beazley  caught  a cold.  Such  matters  he  usually  took  in  his 
stride,  and  was  amazed  therefore  to  find  Keynes  putting  him  to 
bed,  producing  all  sorts  of  cures  and  lavishing  the  greatest  atten- 
tion upon  him.  Beazlev  had  the  sense  that  he  was  nursing  him 
“ like  a mother  “ Like  a mothci  ”,  he  repeated  to  me  with 
emphasis.  Poor  Maynard  had  much  experience  of  colds,  and  of 
worse  ailments  following  on  colds,  and  of  his  own  mother’s  loving 
care. 

But  before  this  disaster  of  the  cold,  Bcazlev  lound  himself 
sitting  by  the  fireside  in  a Cambiidge  study  Opposite  him  was 
a lanky,  loose-limbed  figure,  outstretched  in  an  ea,v-chair,  rn  a 
position  of  the  greatest  repose;  that  was  Keynes.  On  the  raipct 
in  front  of  the  fire  was  a collection  of  still  longer  limbs,  still  more 
loosely  joined  together,  stretching  out  indefinitely  in  diderent 
directions;  that  was  Stiachey.  It  is  difficult  to  reinembei  over 
the  years  the  contents  of  brilliant  c onversatioris,  but  the  following 
piece  of  nonsense  hapirciis  to  have  remained  in  Bea/le>’s  mind  * 

Strachey  {from  the  heailhruti)  “ I have  never  iii  the  whole  course* 
of  my  life  read  any  book  nietely  for  pleasure  Have  you, 
Keynes  ? ” 

Keynes : “ No  never.  Have  you,  Bea/Iev  ^ ' 

Beazlo'  • I poems  out  of  the  Gitek  Anthology 

like  eating  chocolate  creams  out  of  a large  box.” 

This  was  a palpable  hit.  But  later  the  conversation  took  a more 
serious  turn,  the  subject  being  rococo.  Bea/lc'v  expressed  a prefer- 
ence for  the  classical  revival  of  Canova  and  Ingres  Keynes  w e' 
on  to  him  like  a knife.  “ Oh,  do  vou  really  Bea/Icy  ? Now  wh) 
is  that  ? Yefu  must  give  us  yom  reasons.”  He  seemed  almost 
nettled,  as  though  Beazley  had  invaded  a strongly  held  convic  lion, 
trodden  on  sacred  ground.  Beazley  does  not  rcc  all  that  he  made 
an  adequate  defence  of  his  preference. 

American  and  German  scholars  have  given  me  their  opinion 
that  J.  D.  Beazley  is  the  world's  foremewt  classical  scholar  in  this 
generation.  His  attribution  of  hundreds  of  Greek  vases  to  various 
individual  painters  hitherto  unknown,  and  its  acceptance  by  all 
who  arc  competent  to  judge  upon  the  matter,  * may  perhaps  be 


92  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1902 

regarded  as  the  most  notable  achievement  in  the  whole  history 
of  art  criticism.  Bcazley  has  travelled  far  and  wide  wherever 
Greek  antiquities  are  to  be  found,  and  met  most  of  the  eminent 
classical  scholars  and  art  connoisseurs  of  the  various  countries. 
His  tribute  therefore  has  some  weight. 

“ When  I went  over  to  Cambridge  at  that  time,”  he  has  told 
me,  “ I thought  Keynes  and  Strachey  were  the  two  cleverest  men 
I had  ever  met ; and,  looking  back  over  the  years,  I still  think 
that  they  are  the  two  eleveresi  men  I ever  have  met.”  I asked 
him  specifically  whether  he  had  the  impression  that  one  was 
leading  or  dominating  the  other.  “ No,”  he  replied,  “ they 
seemed  to  me  to  be  equals,  peers,  different  and  complementary.” 


5 

Such  was  the  setting  and  such  the  interests ; and  the  terms  at 
Cambridge  passed  rapidly  by. 


J,  M.  Keynes  lo  /?.  W.  SwiUiinbank^  will  Decembor  igo2 

I am  engaged  upon  the  works  of  Peter  Abelard,  my  intention 
being,  at  picsent,  to  write  a paper  upon  the  aforementioned  gent. 

How  go  things  with  you  — I find  so  many  nice  people,  who 
have  periods  when  they  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  world  is  a 
damned  bad  concern  : - a very  bad  habit,  even  if  their  conclusion 

is  the  right  one,  and  a very  difficult  one  to  get  out  of  — how  go 
things  with  you  ^ 

The  paper  on  Abelard  was  read  to  the  Apennine  Society  at 
the  beginning  of  the  following  February.  Those  who  heard  it 
were  astounded  by  the  erudition  of  this  mathematical  philosopher. 
We  learn  from  his  father’s  diary  that,  while  he  was  working 
on  Abelard,  be  was  devoting  three  hours  each  • morning  to 
mathematics. 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  B,  W.  Swithinbank,  jisl  December  igo2 

On  Friday  I am  going  metropoliswards  to  see  two  plays ; later 
on  I shall  be  in  Manchester  for  a short  time  visiting  relatives.  An 
uncle  is  a Director  of  the  Rylands  Library  (one  of  the  best  collections 
of  rare  books  in  the  country)  and  I am  to  be  given  full  access.  . . . 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  93 

One  of  the  plays  was  Forbes-Robertson’s  Othello^  which  he 
‘‘  enjoyed  immensely  In  the  last  years  of  his  life  many  great 
honours  came  to  Maynard,  and  many  invitations  to  serve  as 
President,  or  Vice-President,  or  what  not,  of  various  bodies  which 
he  had  to  refuse.  But  the  invitation  to  be  a Director  of  the  Rylands 
Library  he  accepted,  and  it  gave  him  great  pleasure. 

Next  term  he  began  going  to  Moore's  lectures  on  Ethics ; in 
addition  to  Hobson  he  had  Richmond,  a Fellow  of  King’s,  for 
mathematical  instruction. 

J,  M.  Keynes  to  B.  W.  Swithinhank^  s* 41  ti  January  igo^ 

Next  Tuesday  at  llie  Union  Sheppard  piopob(‘s  that  the  Dis- 
establishment of  the  Chuich  would  he  in  accouLin((‘  w'ilh  the  best 
interest  both  of  herself  and  the  nation  : and  Ciat  'lee  op])oses. 

Won’t  it  be  grand  ! 

J.  Af.  Keynes  to  B.  W,  Sivithinhank^  r^th  February 

The  result  of  the  Disestablishment  debate  was,  I think,  on  the 
whole  satisfactory ; Sheppard  made  a very  good  spe(‘ch  indeed,  but 
Gasclee,  I thought,  was  a trifle  disappointing ; his  was  a good  speech 
too,  but  he  w'as  clcaily  not  at  his  ease  and  did  not  01  ate  enough 
Last  night  Sheppard,  Strachey,  and  I dined  w^ith  Verrall ; he  holds 
foith  continuously  and  somewhat  biilliantly  withal,  Jiis  ’vife  and 
daughter  forming  an  intelligent  and  well  drilled  chorus. 

During  the  !.  ^t  week  the  whole  of  King’s  has  been  turned  upside 
down  by  a religious  controvers>  — as  to  what  lines  a mission,  wbieh 
it  is  pi’oposed  that  the  College  should  start,  is  to  be  run  upon.  It 
was,  at  one  time,  to  be  hi.*h  church,  but  Sheppard  and  I and  several 
others  helped  to  organise  a regular  opposition  and  we  finally  carried 
in  the  College  meeting  by  a majority  of  some  75  to  25  that  the 
scheme  should  be  on  a purely  secular  basis.  It  w'as  a tremendou^ 
triumph.  But  I will  say  no  more  about  it ; we  have  had  enough  of 
it  here  already.  I had  to  make  a specv  h before  the  Provost,  almost 
the  whole  College,  and  a no.  of  dons  including  Professor  Bury. 

1 read  Abelard  last  Sunday. 

I would  ooze  more  ink,  if  I hadn’t  to  speed  off  to  tea  with 
Strachey.  . . . 

The  controversy  mentioned  in  this  letter  shook  the  College  to  its 
foundation.  After  much  negotiation,  much  intrigue,  the  forma- 
tion of  committees  and  of  sub-committees,  the  Jiopcs  of  a settle- 
ment were  finally  dashed  and  there  was  a great  ad  hoc  meeting  in 


94  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1903 

the  Hall  of  King’s,  which  is  still  remembered.  Mr.  H.  O.  Meredith 
and  George  Barger  were  brought  up  from  London  to  speak.  A 
word  should  be  said  of  Meredith,  who  had  just  been  elected  to  a 
fellowship.  He  was  resident  in  London  at  this  time,  but  had 
recently  been  a person  of  considerable  influence  in  King’s.  A 
man  of  noble  mien,  later  with  a beard,  and  of  bright,  flashing  eye, 
he  looked  and  was  every  inch  a philosopher.  With  such  an  im- 
posing appearance,  he  might  be  expected  to  roll  forth  resonant 
Victorian  periods.  Not  so ; Irs  voice  was  very  gentle,  reflecting 
his  subtle,  finely  tempered  mind.  He  did  not  orate,  but  in  a quiet 
insinuating  way,  with  delicate  touch,  pushed  your  thought 
forward  a little.  Might  not  the  matter  be  just  a little  different  — 
like  this  ? He  was  an  early  admirer  of  the  works  of  Mr.  E.  M. 
Forster,  and  enthusiastic  in  his  appreciation  of  Lowes  Dickinson. ^ 
Barger  was  the  well-known  chemist.  Grant  and  ‘Gaselce  were 
leaders  on  the  other  side. 

Meredith  has  a clear  recollection  of  the  speeches  made  by 
Maynard  and  Sheppard  on  this  occasion.  Maynard’s  Was  a 
magnificent  forensic  display,  cool  and  collected,  the  arguments 
well  marshalled,  the  rights  of  the  individuaF  conscience  clearly 
set  out.  It  carried  the  votes  of  those  who  could  be  persuaded  by 
logic,  and  his  support  gave  his  side  the  necessary  respectability 
among  Etonian  Kingsmen.  But  Meredith  judges  that  Sheppard’s 
performance  was  the  more  effective  with  the  majority.  An 
experienced  Union  speaker,  he  delivered  what  he  had  to  say  with 
sober,  reflective  judgment.  He  had  been  much  perplexed  in 
mind  by  this  affair.  Drawing  on  his  experiences  in  connection  with 
the  Dulwich  Mission,  he  adjured  his  audience  to  choose  the  path 
of  caution  and  safety.  This  motion  was  carried  and  Maynard 
was  inevitably  elected  one  of  the  twelve  members  of  the  Settlement 
Committee. 

He  spoke  “ on  the  paper  at  the  Union  at  the  first  meeting 
of  the  term  on  the  Venezuelan  dispute,  urging  that'  it  was  “ not 
safe  to  trust  Germany  too  implicitly  ”.  Later,  rather  surprisingly, 
he  spoke  for  a motion  “ in  favour  of  the  support  given  by  the 
present  Government  to  the  Principles  of  Imperialism  ”. 

Next  term  he  visited  Oxford  (Swithinbank  was  still  at  Eton ; 
he  went  to  Balliol  the  following  autumn). 

> H.  O.  Meredith  (known  as  “Horn”  in  Maynard’s  circle)  in  iQii  became 
Professor  of  Politic  al  onomy  at  Queen’s  University,  Belfast,  where  he  was  an 
important  cultural  influence  both  in  the  University  and  the  city. 


AET.  19]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  95 
J.  M,  Keynes^  Balliol  College^  Oxford^  to  B,  W.  Swithinbank^  30th  May 

^903 

As  you  will  see  from  the  preliminary  emblazonment  1 am  staying 
at  the  rival  seat  of  the  humanities,  having  made  a dinner  to  Sir  E. 
Grey,  to  which  1 was  invited  as  a representative  of  the  C^dinbridge 
Liberal  League,  an  excuse  for  a first  visit  to  Oxford. 

I went  to  breakfast  at  All  Souls  this  morning  to  inet  i him,  and 
he  strikes  me  as  a very  cornmcinding  and  reliable  statesman. 

Butler  is  putting  me  up  at  Balliol. 

I have  been  waxing  quite  political  Lit  el)  a most  amusing 
game,  and  a very  fairly  adequate  substitute  for  bridge. 

1 am  leaving  Oxford  this  evening:  it's  all  very  niysteiious,  but 
rather  pleasant. 

Back  in  Cambridge  he  was  first  speakci  for  the  motion  at  tin* 
Union  that  the  House  “ sincerely  hopes  that  Home  Rule  for 
Ireland  is  beyond  the  sphere  of  practical  polities  According  to 
the  Cambridge  Review  he  held  that  there  were  pi  at  lical  objertions, 
both  fiscal  and  strategical,  that  would  render  the  granting  of 
Home  Rule  an  utter  impossibility.  Mr.  Keynes'  forte  is  clear- 
ness, fluency  and  elegance  of  expression.  He  makes  no  attempt 
at  oratory,  and  except  in  a w(‘ll  ediu  ated  aiidit^m  c he  would  be 
difficult  to  follow.”  He  made  othei  speeches  and  was  elected  at 
the  top  of  the  list  10  the  Standing  Committet*.  Immediately 
after  the  end  of  term  I he  family  went  lor  a holiday  to  Switzerland. 

In  his  second  year  he  w’as  able  to  move  into  a fine  set  ot  rooms, 
formerly  Gaselee’s,  on  Staircase  A,  looking  ac  ross  the  front  court 
towards  the  (ffiapel.  His  uiother  had  to  think  hard  about  lurnish- 
ing  them.  The  dining-room  carpet  and  tht  drawing-room  sofa 
were  transferred  from  6 Harvey  Road.  Cambridge  has  a pleasant 
habit  of  assembling  undergraduates  voluntarily  for  a period  of 
residence  during  the  long  vacation.  'VhcTC  are  no  lectures  01 
official  instruction  ; it  is  a reading  paity  on  a grand  scale.’  May- 
nard went  with  Page  for  some  coaching  to  Mr.  Leathern  ol  St. 
John’s. 

During  the  course  of  the  vacation  he  remembered  that  there 
was  a subject,  in  which  his  father  had  no  little  interest,  called 

* It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  Cambridfi;e  scienlists  arr,  by  making  certain  attend- 
ances at  the  laboratories  compulsory'  (i93u)»  iu'^idiously  frndincf  to  romert  this  into 
an  extra  term  — to  the  detriment,  some  hold,  of  the  proper  studies  of  dons  and 
undergraduates  alike.  * 


96  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1904 

Political  Economy.  He  set  himself  to  do  the  Civil  Service  Examina- 
tion Paper,  in  which  his  father  happened  to  be  examining,  and  in 
the  following  weeks  did  some  desultory  reading  in  it.  Towards  the 
end  of  the  vacation  we  find  him  going  to  a gathering  organised 
by  the  Liberal  Party  at  the  Hotel  Cecil,  in  London. 

The  fiscal  question  was  becoming  a burning  issue  at  this  time. 
At  the  opening  meeting  of  the  Union  Keynes  was  speaking  on 
the  Free  Trade  side.  Towards  the  end  of  the  term  Swithinbank 
and  Dundas  came  over  to  witness  Sheppard’s  performance  of 
Peithetairos,  Dr.  Keynes  notes  that  Maynard  “ cannot  be  doing 
much  work.  For  fourteen  consecutive  days  he  has  only  one  free 
evening.”  The  impulse  first  given  by  Mr.  Lubbock  died  hard, 
and  at  this  time  he  was  again  working  at  St.  Bernard. 

Meanwhile  Maynard’s  sister  Margaret  had  ccmipleted  her  time 
at  Wycombe  Abbey  and  had  gone  for  further  education  to  Ger- 
many, where  she  stayed  with  the  Baronin  von  Bissing  at  Witten- 
berg. In  the  following  Easter  Vacation  Maynard  went  with  his 
mother  to  fetch  her  home  and  they  visited  Dicsclen  and  Beilin. 


J.  M,  Keynes  lo  B.  W.  Swithinbank^  24th  Match  igo4 

Out  of  some  three-thousand  pictures  1 find  I have  marked  140 
in  my  catalogue  fts  supreme,  and  24  as  - - well  whatever  the  word  is 
for  the  next  stage  up  towards  the  ideal  good.  Every  painter  is  here, 
but  I find  the  Germans  of  the  early  sixteenth  century  most  to  my 
taste,  — the  Durers,  Holbeins,  and  Cranachs.  1 should  like  to 
analyse  my  reasons  — if  1 have  any.  In  Berlin  we  saw  more  pictures 
- - especially  one  Holbein,  and  both  here  and  there  much  statuary, 
Greek  and  Roman  and  later  ; at  Berlin  two  most  beautiful  boys’  busts 
of  the  Augustan  period,  and  a most  magnificent  bust  of  Scipio 
Africanus  — but  the  list  is  endless.  ...  At  Berlin  w^e  saw  Ibsen’s 
Wild  Duck  supremely  acted.  The  more  1 contemplate  it  the  greater 
does  the  play  appear.  . . . The  book-sellers’  shops  ir  this  country 
arc  rather  an  interesting  contrast  to  ours  --  innumerable  translations 
from  French  and  English  ( particulady  Bernard  Shaw,  and  Maeter- 
linck), very  little  native  modem  literature,  but  the  Classical  writers 
of  all  languages  translated  and  fabulously  cheap.  (I  bought  a copy 
of  Ibsen’s  Wild  Duck  for  2d.  and  that  is  the  normal  price.) 

In  the  next  following  Summer  Term  (1904)  he  showed  in  a 
very  striking  way  his  predilection  for  the  best.  He  attended  a 
course  of  lectures  by  Alfred  Whitehead,  given  three  times  a week, 


ABT.20]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  97 

alone.  Not  an  easy  task ! Experto  crede.  There  is  some  tendency 
to  stay  away,  even  if  only  to  spare  the  lecturer  his  pains.  In  a 
letter  written  to  me  some  thirty  years  later,  Whitehead  cited 
Bertrand  Russell  and  Keynes  as  instances  of  his  best  pupils.  At 
the  time  it  puzzled  me  to  know  how  Keynes  had  been  his  pupil. 
This  solitary'  attendance  for  three  hours  a week  surely  justified 
the  description. 

Maynard  continued  to  speak  frequently  at  the  Union.  At 
the  last  meeting,  with  Sheppard,  just  elected  President,  already 
in  the  Chair,  he  spoke  for  a motion  proi)oscd  by  MacGregor  ^ 
against  Chamberlain’s  Piscal  Policy.  On  earlier  occasion^  the 
House  had  tended  to  be  Ikvourable  to  C'hamberlain.  But  tbis 
time  the  Free  Traders  carried  the  day. 

At  the  end  of  this  term  he  was  elected  Secretary  of  the  Union, 
defeating  Mr.  J.  K.  Mozley.  By  the  custom  which  was  then 
followed  in  Cambridge,  the  Secietaryship  led  automatically  to 
the  Vice-Presidency  and  the  Presidency.  Tims  in  <'ffect  he  had 
been, elected  President.  At  the  same  time  h«'  also  became  Presi- 
dent of  the  University  Liberal  Club.  And  in  the  Mas  examina- 
tion, a kind  of  College  dress-rehearsal  for  the  ordeal  of  the  Tripos, 
which  was  to  come  a year  later,  h(‘  obtained  a first-ilass  iii 
mathematics. 

Quite  a little  bunch  of  successes!  Did  they  lecall  that  red- 
letter  day  at  Eton  when  he  was  elected  to  J\>p,  obtained  a King’s 
scholarship,  and  his  college  colours?  1 hardly  think  so.  Less 
than  three  years  had  elapsed,  but  in  that  time  he  had  growui  up. 
He  had  long  since  achieved  maturity  of  speech  and  manners,  but 
now  he  had  achieved  maturity  of  soul.  He  was  to  be  President 
of  the  Union,  yes;  bu+  his  mind  kept  1 everting  to  Moore’s 
argument  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  Society,  and  to  Straehey’s 
revelation  at  their  talk  over  the  fire  a few  nights  ago.  He  had 
become  the  apostle  of  truth.  'Po  think  aright,  perhaps  t(  influence 
the  course  of  events,  these  w'ere  to  be  his  goals  in  future.  No 
worldly  successes  were  to  mean  much  to  him,  nor  rebuffs  either 
for  that  matter.  It  is  true  that  when,  shortly  before  his  death, 
he  heard  that  he  was  to  receive  the  Order  of  Merit,  that  gave 
pleasure.  He  may  have  felt  that  it  was  what  he  “ desired  perhaps 
more  than  anything  else  that  remains  to  be  got  here  ”.  But 
with  the  mellow'ncss  of  advancing  years  external  honours  regain 
something  of  the  charm  that  they  have  for  the  imagination  of 
* D.  H.  MacGregor,  Drummond  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Oxford, 

H 


98  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1904 

boyhood.  One  recaptures  a vision  of  the  enchantments  of  fairy- 
land. 

In  the  Long  Vacation  he  went  with  Woolf  for  a walking  tour 
in  North  Wales,  and  they  stayed  with  the  Sangers.  Towards  the 
end  of  it  he  began  working  on  his  essay  on  Burke,  which  in  the 
following  term  won  him  the  “ Members’  Prize  The  greatest 
merit  of  the  essay  was  his  mature  restraint  in  not  forcing  the  doc- 
trines of  Burke  to  yield  clear-cut  answers  to  the  questions  raised. 
He  showed  much  sympathy  foi  his  author’s  point  of  view,  includ- 
ing his  defence  of  things  established,  criticising  him  mainly  for 
letting  intrinsically  good  arguments  carry  him  to  extremes.  It  is 
interesting  to  compare  this  essay  with  his  Memoir.  In  the  latter 
he  wrote  of  his  youthful  jicriod  that  ‘‘  we  were  not  aware  that 
civilisation  was  a thin  and  precarious  crust  ”,  and  “ it  did  not 
occur  to  us  to  respect  the  extraordinary  accomplishment  of  our 
predecessors  in  the  ordering  of  life  (as  it  now  seems  to  me  to  have 
been)  or  the  elaborate  framework  which  they  had  devised  to 
protect  this  order  But  his  essay  shows  clearly  that  he  had 
known  all  about  that  at  the  time.  He  had  never  in  his  own  person 
been  a callow  young  idealist ; he  had  had  no  iUpsions,  If  he  went 
along  with  Iiis  friends  in  dreaming  dreams,  it  is  clear  that  he  must 
have  had  his  own  mental  reservations.  It  was  part  of  his  genius 
and  his  greatness  that,  while  he  could  become  the  most  polemical 
of  partisans,  he  saw  all  sides  of  the  ca?)C.  I’his  bewildered  many, 
since  thc>  inferred  fickleness.  But  it  reassured  the  finest  minds 
who  met  his,  because  they  knew  that,  when  it  came  to  j^ractical 
decisions,  he  would  recognise  the  full  strength  of  the  opposition 
case,  — and  indeed  already  knew  it  better  than  his  opponents 
themselves ! Thus,  lor  all  his  exaggerations  in  controversy,  he 
would  be  a safe  guide  in  action. 

He  now  approached  the  final  year  of  his  work  J'or  the  mathe- 
matical Tripos.  His  comparative  neglect  of  his  proper  subject 
of  study  had  been  a matter  of  recurrent  anxiety  to  his  father, 
who  feared  that  the  wrong  subject  had  been  chosen.  Maynard 
continued  to  maintain  outside  interests.  This  Michaelmas  term 
was  the  occasion  of  the  Swithinbank-Bcazley  visit,  and  we  find  him 
still  playing  the  Wall  Game  at  Eton.  His  position  at  the  Union 
inevitably  absorbed  much  time,  and  he  spoke  frequently.  He 
was  due  to  hold  office  in  each  term  in  this  last  year,  but  by  a stroke 
of  luck  he  missed  the  Vice-Presidency.  The  President  elected  at 
the  end  of  the  M<ichaehnas  term  for  the  following  term  was  not 


AET.  2Tj  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  99 

able  to  remain  in  Cambridge,  and  in  consequence  Maynard 
proceeded  straight  from  the  Secretaryship  to  the  Presidency,  and 
his  Tripos  term  was  thus  clear  of  official  duties  at  the  Union.’' 
One  characteristic  touch  must  be  mentioned  in  connection 
with  his  term  ol  Presidency,  lie  was  not  so  immersed  in  high 
Union  politics  as  to  take  no  thought  of  the  staff.  He  set  up  a 
Committee  to  investigate  the  matter,  and  detailed  instructions 
concerning  hours  of  employment  were  emhodi(‘d  in  the  minutes 
of  the  Standing  Committee  during  his  term.  And,  determined 
that  the  matter  should  be  properly  buttoned  up,  h(‘  had  a standing 
order  passed  that  in  future  every  \'i('e-Presidciit  must  make  a 
report  on  staff  condition  .. 

The  Tripos  was  looming  up,  and  what  w.is  to  haj^pen  after 
that  ? Maynard  had  a wonderful  t apacit\  for  li\  ing  in  the  present, 
and  we  niiiy  belies e that  he  w<is  not  obscsscti,  c.s  some  under- 
graduates arc,  wath  the  ]3robli  nw  of  the  future.  He  had,  it  is  true, 
to  make  his  own  way.  His  lather  paiil  the  preliminaiy  fee  for 
him  to  be  entered  at  the  Inner  U emple,  and  in  the  ni‘xt  year  he 
ate  some  dinners.  'This  was  a precaution,  but  it  does  not  seem 
that  he  thought  of  the  Bar  \ery  seriouslv  as  a career.  The  follow- 
ing letter  is  undated,  but  was  exidently  written  wdiile  Mc*yiiard 
was  an  undergraduate.- 


G.  M.  Trevflyan  to  J,  M.  Keynes 

I k('cp  heaiiiig  fioui  different  people  that  you  ha\t  made  up 
your  mind  to  go  into  the  Civil  Service.  1 don'l  know  win  at  the  stage 
you  have  now'  reached  ou  should  have  made  up  )our  mind  about 
your  future  Ciir(*ei,  and  } erha]»s  it  is  ni)i  true.  But  if  vou  are  already 
beginning  t(/  think  seriously  about  it,  do  let  me  beg  you  to  keep  an 
open  mind.  Perscrnally  I tliink  it  is  most  distressing  the  way  the  civil 
service  swallow's  neaily  all  the  Irest  Camlrridge  men,  to  the  ruin  <»f 
our  politic^d  life.  Only  rme  or  t*\  ) jreoplc  like  Theodore  Das^ies  can 
make  a guat  career  out  of  the  civil  service.  That  needs  both  great 
luck,  and  very  peculiar  qualilic's. 

You  are  born  to  be  a politician  I should  guess.  The  only  reason 


* This  accident  has  deprived  the  Union  of  records  of  his  wliich  they  would  other- 
wise have  had  : for  it  is  the  Vice-President  who  a 'rites  tht‘  terminal  report,  and  who 
deals  with  complaints  in  the  suggestion  book. 

2 In  a letter  written  to  Strachey  on  soih  October  1907,  Kc>nes  refris  to  this 
letter  as  “ two  years  ago  “ Two  veais  ’*  mav  be  approximate : th<*  reference 
to  “ the  stage  you  have  now  reached  **  suggests  a slightly  earlier  date. 


loo  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1904 

for  rushing  into  the  tomb  of  the  civil  service  is  that  it  offers  safety 
from  the  beginning  in  the  way  of  income.  The  Bar  is  not  a certainty  — 
that  is  its  only  disadvantage  as  against  the  civil  service  for  a man  like 
you.  But  surely  you  can  feel  confidence  enough  in  yourself  to  be 
able  to  get  on  at  the  Bar,  if  by  a fellowship  you  can  secure  enough 
to  keep  you  for  a few  years.  You  live  in  a very  unadventurous  atmo- 
sphere at  Cambridge,  but  ought  you  not  to  be  a little  more  adventur- 
ous yourself?  Why  should  not  a fellowship  lead  to  the  bar,  and  the 
bar  after  many  years  to  politics  ? It  is  on  such  choices,  made  in  early 
youth,  that  the  fate  of  the  country  in  the  future  ultimately  turns. 
Our  supply  of  liberal  aristocrats  is  running  dry.  Of  course  it  is  a risk 
and  a venture,  — but  there  are  proverbs  on  the  need  of  taking  them. 
This  is  a venlui(‘  many  men  take  with  less  prosj^ect  of  doing  great 
things  than  you  would  have.  I doif  t say  that  lam  sure  that  you 
ought  to  do  thus,  I only  say  don’t  yet  be  sure  you  oughtn’t.  And  let 
your  soul  revolve  the  matter  in  all  its  aspects.  Don’t  answer  this 
letter.  It  doesn’t  need  an  answer  and  is  not  written  to  draw  one. 
Only  do  not  forget  it. 

Weighty  words.  What  shall  wc  sa>  ? There  is  certainly  a pro- 
phetic nc>tc  in  this  letter.  British  ]>olitics  havj  languished  sadly 
since  it  w'as  written,  perhaps  even  beyond  tlic  cxpechitioiis  of 
the  author.  What  if  Maynard  had  taken  his  advice?  Would 
other  clever  young  men  have  followed  his  example?  Might  the 
whole  ])olitical  scene  have  been  dilfcient? 

And  v\liat  did  Maynard  think  himself?  Did  those  Apostles 
inhibit  bis  .imbilicm  ? Did  Strathey  scdiu  c him  with  his  moie 
exciting  quests  ? H«id  worldlv  pursuits  so  fallen  in  his  esteem  that 
he  really  thought  politics  no  more  than  a “fairly  adequate 
substitute  for  bridge?  ” 

Or  was  it  a rather  cliHerent  strain  in  his  temperament  that 
decided  the  matter?  He  lived  very  much  in  the  present,  his 
enthusiasms  were  usually  directed  to  something  here  and  now. 
He  may  have  felt  towards  Trevelyan's  long-range  plan  of  action 
rather  as  he  felt  towards  those  beneficent  economic  forces  which 
only  vield  their  good  results  “ when  we  arc  all  dead 

In  the  Christmas  vacation  he  went  off  with  his  old  friends 
Dundas,  Harold  Butler  and  O.  C.  Williams*  to  Forest  Row  in 
Sussex,  where  they  would  be  the  neighbours  of  Humphrey  Paul, 

‘ Orlando  C^ypriaii  Williams,  Lton  Scholar  an  election  senior  to  Maynard,  then  at 
Balliol,  since  Cleik  to  the  House  of  Commons  and  author  under  the  name  of  Orlo 
W’illiams  * 


AET.2I]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  loi 

to  make  up  leeway  in  his  mathematical  studies. 

In  this  last  year  before  the  Tripos  there  occurred  an  event 
which  bade  fair  to  be  the  beginning  of  one  of  his  lifelong  friend- 
ships. A new  star  had  appeared  at  Trinity,  acclaimed  as  such  by 
Strachey  and  others.  When  Maynard  met  him  he  joined  in  the 
chorus  of  praise.  This  was  Mr.  (now  Sir)  Arthur  Hobhouse. 
Economists  are  aware  of  how  excited  Maynard  bt  amc  on  the 
occasion  of  a new  economic  finding.  In  those  young  days  these 
enthusiasms  were  directed  to  people.  Mi.  Hobhouse  had  all  the 
right  qualities,  intelligence,  interest  in  intellectual  matters,  fine 
sensitivity  and  personal  charm.  There  was  a spirit  in  all  the 
Strachey  set  of  restless  quest  for  those  who  had  the  wit  and  feeling 
to  enter  with  s)inpathy  into  their  circle.  Friendship,  after  all, 
was  the  most  important  thing  in  life. 

Maynard  saw^  a good  deal  of  Hobhousi  in  these  months. 
Their  paths  later  were  to  lie  apart.  Hobhouse,  like  Swithinbaiik 
in  the  end,  faded  from  the  scene.  He  took  up  the  law  and  later 
went,  into  politics.  But  the  tniditions  of  his  family  were  those 
of  progressive  public  service,  and,  on  the  decline  of  the  Liberal 
Patty,  he  entered  local  government  wheie  he  w^on  for  himself  a 
position  of  high  importance  and  esteem. 

In  the  final  vacation  before  the  Tripos  the>  were  together 
working  at  Truro,  Even  Maynard  had  to  make  a spurt  now. 
Had  he  hiiled  to  obt«iiii  a First,  that  would  indeed  have  been  a 
universal  disappointment  — and  what  of  his  future.'*  It  was  a 
horrible  gruelling  interlude.  He  consoled  himself  with  cri?  de 
cmr  to  his  friends.  Swithinbank  had  just  obtained  a first  class  in 
honours  moderations,  and  Maynard  opened  with  a bloodthirsty 
paean  of  triumph  over  the  Balliol  dons,  who,  for  some  reason, 
seemed  always  a little  unfriendly  to  Swithinbank. 


J.  Af.  Keynes  to  B.  W.  Swithinbank,  iSth  Apnl  lyofi.  Tmro 

I want  to  see  you ; for  the  last  three  weeks  I liJive  been  on  the 
point  of  writing  to  you,  and  I have  been  filled  with  an  affection 
for  you  — but  I have  not  written. 

I am  still  your  friend  — I hope  you  are  mine ; but  I am  slothful 
and  we  are  at  different  Universities  — what  is  to  be  done  ? In  the 
meantime  I am  soddening  my  brain,  destroying  my  intellect,  souring 
my  disposition  in  a panic-stricken  attempt  to  acquire  the  rudiments 
of  the  Mathematics. 


102  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1905 

Heaven  help  the  examinee  where  so  ever  he  be  found. 


What  are  you  thinking  and  reading  about  ? How  is  your  health 
and  your  energy  ? 

I find  my  chief  comfort  more  and  more  in  Messrs  Plato  and 
Shakespeare.  Why  is  it  so  diflkult  to  find  a true  combination  of 
passion  and  intellect  ? My  heioes  must  feel  and  feci  passionately  — 
but  they  must  see  too,  everything  and  more  than  everything. 

What  is  there  wortli  anything  except  passionate  perception. 

Alas  “ - as  you  see  1 am  liable  to  blather.  However,  perhaps 
you  see  wliat  I mean. 

We  have  communicated  so  little  lately  that  it  scarcely  seems 
possible  or  amusing  to  say  an>  thing  about  the  details  of  one’s 
existence.  Hence  these  gcmeraiiiies. 

All  the  same,  1 still  feel  as  it  1 were  intimate  with  you,  and  yet  I 
do  not  know  what,  at  this  moment,  you  are  rt'ally  like*. 

Do  you  understand  this  letter?  1 wonder. 

PA'crynu  alfcH  donate, 

].  M.  KlypiiFS 


And  then  cm  his  return  to  Cambridge : 


J.  M,  hcyncs  to  (i.  L.  Shaduy,  23KI  Apul  i fjoj 

I was  w^oiking  six  hours  a day  at  woik  which  1 w^as  actively 
loathing  almost  the  whole*  time  I w^as  at  it. 

He  [Hobhouse]  — without  inteTinissicai  — was  ill  in  health  and 
attempting  to  force  himself  to  do  moie  work  than  he  was  fit  for. 

However,  it  was  — ethically  — the  most  valuable  three  weeks  I 
ha\e  ever  sj^ent,  I am  coming  round  more  and  meue  to  your  view' 
of  the  ai)paJliug  chmgc'rs  cjf  woik.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  more  I 
do  the  less  lime  T have  for  more  rcspe(  table  pursuits  - - but  the  less 
desire  I have  for  an\  thing  that  is  dec  ent.  That  is  the  horror.  How- 
ever to-day  being  the  Sabbath  I haven’t  done  a stioke-— and  I 
feel  the  better  foi  it. 

Ah,  one  might  wpte  like  that ; yet  by  his  owm  free  will  and  choice 
he  was  to  live  laborious  days  for  the  next  fort>  years. 

Next  term  he  fat  ed  his  ordcaL 


Ml  y.  Keynes  to  J,  M,  Keynes^  ^ih  June  lyoj 

...  I must  send  a line  of  greeting.  For  half  my  life  you  have 
occupied  a large  place  in  my  thoughts  and  affections  and  it  is 
natural  that  1 shcfuld  think  of  you  and  hope  for  you  to-day. 


AET.22]  UNDERGRADUATE  AT  CAMBRIDGE  103 

I hope  for  — and  expect  — success  this  time  as  so  often  before, 
but  whatever  the  result  may  be  next  week,  I shall  be  proud  of  your 
University  career  and  satisfied  that  you  have  spent  your  time  well. 

In  the  examination  list  he  was  biacketed  twelfth  Wrangler. 
Some  congratulated  ; some  condoled.  The  result  wms  respectable, 
but  not  triumphant.  Mathematics  were  not  Ins  love  - although 
he  was  to  remain  deeply  interested  in  mathematical  philosophy. 
Yet  it  is  doubtful  if  he  would  have  been  much  happier  in  any 
other  prescribed  couisc  of  study.  He  had  aheads  outgrown  the 
examination  phase.  His  mind  was  wandering  in  strange  new 
fields  of  thought.  He  had  to  find  out  foi  himself  whcie  his  life’s 
work  Idy. 


C IT  \ P 1 r R III 


IN  QUEST  or  A WAY  OF  LIFE 


AT  about  this  time  thcie  weie  those  who  began  to  have  an 
uneasy  feeling  that  there  was  something  subtl^y  amiss  in  the 
jL  Jl  way  in  which  Maynard  was  developing.  W as  he  not  deviat- 
ing from  the  high  road  so  cleaily  marked  out  for  him?  Was  he 
not  becoming  too  much  wrapped  up  m the  psychology  and  per- 
sonal inteiests  of  a particular  set  ? After  all,  he  was  not  destined 
to  be  a poet.  He  had  great  intc'llec tual  and  practual  gifts, 
which  clcailv  suggested  some  kind  of  distinguished  caiefci  of 
active  scivice.  A man  with  auh  a destinv  inav  devote  himself 
to  tilings  poetical  and  aitistnal  at  school,  ai?d  perhaps  for  a 
year  oi  two  at  the  unheisitv.  But  he  must  not  dwell  amid  these 
pleasant  scenes  too  long.  He  miwt  begin  to  get  Imsy  and  devote 
all  his  cncigies  to  what  is  expedient  and  necessaiy  ior  the  harsh 
battle  of  life.  Was  tlieie  not  something  hot-house  about  the 
introspective  interests  of  this  ciiclc,  the  intcnsne  brooding  upon 
the  fine  shades  of  some  young  man’s  character,  to  assess  whether 
he  corresponded  with  the  utmost  ni<  etv  to  the  ideal  of  Moore  or 
the  fastidious  susceptibilities  of  Strachey  * . . It  is  impossible 

to  legislate  foi  genius  No  doubt  (oi  one  who  had  a definite 
ambition,  to  liecorne  Chancellor  of  the  Excheciuer  or  sit  on  the 
Woolsack,  no  time  was  to  be  lost.  But  Maynard’s  thoughts 
ranged  further  afield.  If  one  believed  that  one  might  attain  the 
discovery  of  new  truth  or  might  alter  the  course  of  events,  then  it 
might  be  needful  for  the  time  to  lose  oneself  entirely,  forget  material 
aims  and  follow  the  immediate  promptings  of  the  spirit.  The  forty 
days  in  the  wilderness  are  no  doubt  symbolic  of  a longer  period  of 
time.  Five  years,  ten  years,  may  well  be  sacrificed  to  the  neglect  of 
one’s  career,  if  these  are  necessary  to  penetrate  below  the  surface 
of  things  and  acquire  depth  of  insight.  How  many  eminent  men 
of  affairs  theie  arc,  worldly  wise,  good  judges  of  character,  full  of 
apt  expedients  to  meet  a particular  situation,  who,  when  taken 

J04 


AET.  22]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  105 

outside  their  professional  range,  asked  to  judge  in  some  human 
problem,  are  completely  at  a loss,  embarrassed,  out  of  their  depth. 
Those  who  came  into  contact  with  Maynard  had  the  strong  sense 
that,  admirably  as  he  might  discuss  the  gold  question  or  the  slump, 
he  would  be  a guide  no  less  admirable  if  the  soul  was  in  torment. 
He  was  a sage  and  a philosopher.  There  was  layer  below  layer 
of  insight  and  understanding ; it  would  be  a great  man  indeed 
who  would  plumb  to  the  depths  of  him.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted 
that  this  depth  enhanced  the  influence  of  his  economics,  enabling 
him  to  appeal  to  the  layman  as  well  as  the  expert,  to  feeling  as 
well  as  to  thought. 

Among  those  who  were  uneasy  was  his  old  friend,  Mr.  GeofTiey 
Winthrop  Young,  whose  temporary  spell  as  master  at  Eton  had 
overlapped  Maynard’s  time  tlierc.  Afaynard  had  a high  regard 
for  Young,  which  he  retained  through  life,  and  it  was  therefore 
a pleasure,  as  well  as  an  honour,  to  be  invited  by  this  famous 
mountaineer  to  join  him  in  a climbing  expedition  in  the  August 
following  his  Tripos.  ''  In  Switzerland  I spent  some  time  with 
the  superb  Geolfrey  Young  ”,  he  afterwards  wrote  to  Swithiubank. 

Young  had  an  ulterior  motive.  When  he  writes  in  the  passage 
which  I have  quoted  ^ that  he  took  him  climbing  to  redness  the 
balance,  this  must  be  taken  seriously.  He  felt  that  Maynard’s 
interests  w'cre  becoming  too  hot-house,  and  that  the  high  altitudes 
and  the  perils  of  climbing  would  reduce  his  introspective  tendency 
and  revive  his  more  adventurous  and  j>rartical  impulses,  and  when 
he  “ watched  him  climbing  over  the  very  steep  snow  and  ice  slope 
of  the  summit  with  smooth  security  and  line  nerve  ”,  he  may 
have  felt  that  he  had  achieved  some  success,  CJbviously  he  was 
revelling  in  every  minute  of  it.” 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  C.  L.  Strachey^  nth  August  igof) 

We  have  made  our  wMy  to  Chamonix  over  passes ; on  Tuesday 
we  climbed  up  to  a hut  fcirc.  9000  feet)  to  sleep.  After  two  and  a 
half  hours  sleep  we  set  out  in  the  dark  with  lanterns  on  to  the  glacier, 
crossed  a pass,  climbed  a mountain  and  reached  our  destination  after 
nineteen  hours.  'Die  expedition  was  lengthened  out  to  this  unto- 
ward length  by  the  incompetence  of  the  guides  who  took  us  wrong  at 
every  crucial  point.  This  is  private,  namely  : — Robin  ^ disappeared 
absolutely  out  of  sight  into  a crevasse,  but  he  was  hauled  out  intact. 

* See  pp.  49-51.  * Mr.  Robin  Mayor. 


io6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1905 

(2)  One  of  the  guides  lost  his  head  on  the  mountain  and  went  well 
nigh  mad  ; according  to  G.  W.  Y.  it  was  one  of  the  most  dangerous 
situations  he  had  ever  been  in.  (3)  Wc  had  to  cross  a beastly  bit  of 
glacier  m the  dark.  So  much  for  Switzeiland.  I liked  the  excite- 
ment. 

What  rot  all  this  is  about  nature ; I have  seen  the  superbest 
views  and  the  wildest  and  most  desolate  expanses  of  snow  and  ice; 
there  was  even  danger  . but  not  for  one  single  moment  have  I been 
moved  with  anything  I can  call  violence.  Feelings  of  course  one  gets 
and  a kind  of  passion  of  calmness  but  the  whole  is  on  an  altogether 
lower  scale  of  merit 

He  uses  “ lowei  ” by  comparison  with  the  joys  of  intellectual 
activity  and  liicndship. 

Geoffrey  Young  recalls  how  Strachey  came  to  se‘e  him  after  a 
visit  to  Skye.  This  time  too  he  had  hopes  that  nature  had  made  an 
impression.  The  ticmendous  peaks  ol  the  Coolin,  their  sombre 
outlines  and  shcei  fall  to  the  sea,  their  shadows  and  depths  of 
colour  — suiely  they  had  meant  something  to  him  f 
Lytton  Strachey  * “ I thought  them  simply  Absurd 
It  was  no  use.  They  weie,  in  those  days,  irrctiie\ablc  intel- 
lectuals. It  was  impossible  to  shake  the  settled  convictions  of 
the  two  cleverest  men  tliat  Beazlcy  had  ever  met.* 

Between  the  liipos  and  this  holiday  in  Switzerland,  the 
remainder  of  it  spent  with  his  Tamil)  there,  he  had  already  found 
time  to  do  some  serious  reading  in  economics. The  question 
was  considcied  whcthei  he  should  take  a second  Tripos  (Part  II) 
and  the  choice  seemed  to  be  between  Moral  Science  and  Econo- 
mics. In  the  event  he  took  neither. 


J.  M,  Keyrm  to  G.  L.  Shachey^  8th  Jul)  igo§ 

I have  hnisbed  Wells’  Utopia,  which  lather  peters  c>ut. 

And  masses  of  economics 

Fiom  the  Litter  1 have  discovered  someone  whom  I had  not 
realised  to  be  very  good  — namely  Jevons.  I am  convinced  that  he 

* This  \isit  to  Skvt  was  m August  1908  Strarhry  wrote  to  Maynard  “We’re 
niic  miles  from  Portiee,  the  neaiest  centre  ol  civilisation  (and  beauty),  and  we’re 
surrounded  by  deserts  of  grten  \aguencst>,  multitudes  of  imbecile  mountains  and 
eternal  ram  ” 

* Diary  of  Dr  Keanes,  28th  June  “ Maynaid  now  working  assiduously  at 
Marshall’s  Prtnctples  of  Economics  ” 


AET.22]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  107 

was  one  of  the  minds  of  the  century.  He  hjis  the  curiously  exciting 
style  of  writing  which  one  gets  if  one  is  good  enough  — particularly 
in  the  “ Investigations  into  Currency  and  Finance  ”,  a most  thrilling 
volume.  Moreover  his  letters  and  journal  prove  that  he  was  prob- 
ably apostolic.  At  the  age  of  nineteen  he  had  to  earn  his  living  and 
was  accordingly  sent  to  Australia,  where  he  earned  a lespcctable  and 
assured  income.  But  he  seems  to  have  spoken  to  no  one  and  to  have 
devoted  the  whole  of  his  spare  time  to  the  study  of  rneteorolog)^ 
However  at  the  age  of  twenty  one  he  came  to  the  conclusion  — 
although  he  had  never  been  intimate  with  anyone  in  his  life  - that 
the  only  things  really  worth  having  were  love  and  friendship  (these 
are  his  words)  ; sometimes  he  inclined  to  think  intellectual  insight 
to  be  a little  use.  At  the  age  of  twenty-two  he  came  to  himself  and 
realised  how  eminent  he  was ; he  became  quite  clear  thac  his  brain 
was  full  ol  original  thoughts.  He  tlncw  uj)  his  post  and  all  his  cash 
and  camt  back  to  Engl«ind  for  fuither  education  : it  was  not  long 
before  he  boomed  ; but  he  sufl'ered  fi  oni  sleeplessness  and  depression, 
and  was  drowned  while  bathing  at  the  age  offoity  odd.  . . . 

In*  the  autumn  term  he  was  back  at  Cambridge  and  attended 
Marshall’s  lectures.  Maynard  docs  a good  de.d  of  work  for 
Marshall,  who  describes  some  of  his  answers  as  brilliant.  1 am 
afraid  Marshall  is  endeavouring  to  ptTsuade  him  to  gi\'c  up 
everything  for  Economics.”  ^ 


Alfyed  Marshall  to  Dk  J,  JV.  Keynes,  yd  Dccembc)  jfjof) 

Your  son  is  doing  exi  client  work  in  Ecorumiics.  I have  told  him 
that  I should  be  gicatly  delighted  if  he  should  dec  ide  on  the  career  of 
a professional  economist.  But  of  course  I must  not  press  him. 

Pigou  had  him  to  breakfast  once  a week  and  gave  him  coaching 
in  the  subject.  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  he  was  reading  “ the 
superb  Hume  ” and  also  works  on  psychology.  His  book-buying 
activities  persisted  unabated. 

Meanwhile  Strachey,  after  residing  in  Cambridge  for  six  years, 
had  at  length  gone  dowm.  For  the  biographer  this  event  raises 
the  curtain  on  the  scene  of  Maynard’s  life.  For,  once  parted, 
these  two  friends  entered  upon  an  almost  daily  correspondence 
of  long  letters,  which  lasted  for  a number  of  years  and  revealed 
their  common  interests.  It  is  quite  plain  that  we  are  in  the  middle 
of  a scene,  and  that  the  discussions  carried  on  with  such  assiduity 


Dr.  Keyges’  Diary,  26th  November  1905. 


io8  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1905 

m these  pages  had  been  proceeding  with  equal  energy  for  a long 
time  past.  The  evidence  of  these  letters  has  helped  me  in  the 
distribution  of  emphasis  in  the  foregoing  account  of  the  undei- 
graduate  period  ^ 

These  letters  ha\c  much  to  say^  as  is  natuial  between  intimates, 
about  passing  moods  and  humours  The  main  subjects  of  dis- 
cussion are  the  characters,  personal  lelations  and  opinions  of 
iheir  friends  The  discussion  is  always  critical,  judging  by  some 
ideal  intellectual  and  moial  st  indard,  which  they  shared  The 
letteis  arc  full  of  csolcnc  jokes  and  allusions  1 will  only  quote, 
by  way  of  example,  one  letter  which  is  more  stiaightforwaid  than 
most  In  leading  it  one  must  bear  in  mind  the  intense  interest 
whieh  tlicy  both  tcjok  in  the  affairs  of  '‘the  Society”  and  the 
importance  of  choosing  the  nght  men  for  election 


7 M hemes  to  G 1 Sluului^  ijlh  Otiobtt  igoy 

I have  gufn  way  to  amesli  uiud  ficshci  excite mcnf 
Hobb>  [Mr  Aitliui  Hoblumst]  ga\t  i bu  lU  ist  put)  tins  morning 
at  which  NoiUm  and  A buist  into  vj(\v  Ne\(»his  i teim  opened 
with  so  fan  a piospect  1 hive  tonne d in  opinion,  but  it  is  still  a 
little  mcohcient  JSoiton  is  the  nioit  obvious  —more  grown-up 
than  I w IS  on  nriv  il,  vf  i)  1 (0111  in  and  with  ih  it  p ut  of  I toni'inism 
which  IS  piobalily  i little  oflcnsivt  1 am  sun  he  Ins  a vciy  good 
logic  al  kind  of  mind  ind  th  it  is  his  stic  ngth  , his  own  view,  however, 
IS  that  he  is  cultuicd  — ind  he  is  inciedibh  His  whole  peison  is 
girt  about  by  a wiithmg  me  ss  of  icstht  tic  and  liter  n>  ippicci  itions, 
which  I hive  so  fai  discoieied  no  meins  of  quelling  He’s 
very  proud  of  all  this,  but  it  is  ically  1 ithci  nonsense  wlnt  saves 
him  IS  a stiong  compieheusion  1 hiidly  ever  c lught  him  really 
stupid 

Iheic  IS  nothing  to  say  about  hi*^  appe  nance  ordinaiv  public 
school 

* Tvicknct  ccniiut,  Ircm  this  uid  clhei  sources  m'lkes  it  impossiblt  to  confiim 
the  statement  in  Mi  1 A Ct  Robinsons  inK resting  and  vahnbli  Memoir,  that 
Kt>nes’  abs  irbing  interest  at  this  st  ige  of  his  life  was  politics  (hconomic  Journal^ 
March  1947,  p i >)  J\o  doubt  politics  whs  an  intciest  to  which  he  devoted  much 
attention  \nd  mdted,  h id  lie  been  a man  of  nuzmal  capacity,  one  nii^ht  have  been 
able  to  infer  from  Ins  substantial  volume  of  political  actiMtv  that  this  was  his  ‘ absorb- 
ing ” interest  It  would  be  js  though  one  who  was  unacquainted  with  his  work  m 
economics  argued  that,  at  the  time  he  was  eomposing  The  Genetal  Theoty  of  Employment^ 
Mon^  and  Intel est^  his  pnneipal  mteiest  m life  was  the  theatre  His  “absorbing” 
interests  as  anundtrgi  iduate  were  plnlosophy,  “ the  Society  ”,  and  the  quest  for  perfec- 
tion of  mind  and  character  among  his  contemporaries 


AET.22]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  109 

I am  sure  we  shall  elect  him,  and  equally  sure  that  we  shall 
elect  A.  He  (A)  is,  I think,  more  attractive  qua  character  — at  any 
rate  as  regards  that  part  he  shows  first,  for  he  is  less  self-conscious 
than  the  other,  a little  wilder  (Norton  is  not  wild  at  all),  and  a good 
deal  vaguer.  Artistic.  He  has  had  little  conversation  in  the  past 
and  was  completely  carried  away  by  the  sodden  excitement  of  the 
party.  His  appearance  is  very  aposudic  and  so  is  his  mind  — but  1 
doubt  whether  he  is  as  clever  as  Norton  and  he  might  be  a bore 
sometimes. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  1 have  seen  them  once  only  and  not 
at  all  alone. 

James  * still  eludes  me.  I have  climbed  the  stairs  three  times 
but  in  vain.  To-day  I have  left  a card  asking  him  to  come  and  ee 
me.  Yesterday  I saw  B and  Lord  C — also  at  Hobby’s. 

B is  much  more  clenienlary,  and  possibly  stupid  but  I liked 
him  : the  re  as  no  musliiness. 

C {Le.  Duke  of  D)  is  the  pale,  dull  aristocrat ; of  the  appearance 
bred  by  those  who  marry  beauties. 

Forster  is  up,  and  of  (.ouisc  old  Mc'I’aggart  was  at  last  night’s 
supper. 

Have  you  heard  that  Dickinson’s  hoi  sc  bolted  and  threw  him 
yesterday  ^ He  seems  to  have  concussion  and  is  attended  by  a nurse 
-*  but  reports  allege  that  it  is  not  scrir>us. 

Sheppard  is  booming  Knox  bui  fh>bby  is  against  him. 

J have  privat(‘  adMCO  from  Oxford  that  ttieie  is  no  small  danger 
of  Sw'ilhin’s  deoartuK*  - am^thei  crisis  is  hatching.  I have  come  to 
the  conclusion  (hat  it  docs  not  nuu  h matter  if  he  does.  Of  course  it 
hastens  the  problem  of  what  next : but  as  long  as  he  is  at  Oxford  he 
will  be  miserable  and  no  belter  off  - - ^ whim  the  end  comes. 

Hobby  saw'  him  into  his  cab ; as  he  cKjsed  the  door  S within 
leant  out,  smiled,  and  said  ‘‘  I am  leaving  Heaven 

There  w^as  a wonderful  inter\iew'^  with  Swithin  very  late  on  his 
last  evening  — W'e  got  as  far  as  it  is  po  ssible  for  pure  friendship. 

I feel  a little  lost.  I want  to  argue  w'itli  you  about  these  wretched 
Freshers. 

Such  letters  passed  almost  diiily.  The  analysis  deepened  and 
became  more  intricate.  Many  figures  flit  across  these  pages ; 

* Mr.  Jamos  Strarhey,  T.ytton’s  younejer  biothrr. 

- The  word  he  uses  here,  denoting  “ fioin  d \Aorldly  point  of  view  ”,  was  part  of  the 
secret  language  of  the  Society. 


no  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1905 

those  which  appear  most  frequently  are  Mr.  (Sir  Walter)  Lamb,* 
Dilly  Knox,  Mr.  (Sir  Arthur)  Hobhouse,  Mr.  James  Strachey 
and  H.  T.  Norton.  Of  these  the  last  two  remained  Maynard’s 
close  friends  for  many  years.  Norton  won  the  highest  regard 
both  of  Maynard  and  Strachey,  and  became,  so  to  speak,  a member 
of  the  family  party.  In  this  large  portrait  gallery  the  economists 
most  frequently  referred  to  were  Hawtrey,  who  often  came  up  to 
Cambridge  from  London,  and  Pigou.  A very  close  watch  was 
also  kept  on  the  development  and  trouble*?  of  Swilhinbank,  who 
was  not  happy  at  Oxford. 

Maynard  appears  to  have  devoted  a great  deal  of  time  to 
these  questions.  It  was  not  merely  that  taken  up  in  correspondence 
with  Strachey  and  other  friends  about  them ; he  took  immense 
pains  to  get  to  know  all  these  young  men  personally.  It  was  as 
though  he  was  conducting  an  oral  examination  of  them,  extending 
ovei  many  weeks  and  months.  He  made  elaborate  plans  to 
introduce  them  to  one  another.  In  a carefully  arranged  setting 
X might  be  brought  into  ('ontact  with  Y.  If  the  meeting  was  not 
a success,  the  question  arose  whether  it  showed  a lack  of  sensitivity 
in  X in  failing  to  appreciate  the  subtle  c Inirac  t«r  ol*  Y,  or  showed 
that  Y did  indeed  lack  (|ualities  which  had  been,  perhaps  over- 
hastily,  assigned  to  him.  lb  someone  who  did  not  know  Maynard’s 
capacity  for  work,  it  might  appear  that  tlu'se  personal  investiga- 
tions must  have  occupied  all  liis  time. 

Strache)\  letters  reveal  his  own  interests  and  inw^ard  life,  and 
arc  often  vciy  moving.  He  was  eager  to  know  about  the  Cam- 
bridge young.  Living  now  in  London,  he  could  not  reciprocate 
in  the  offer  of  many  new  young  acquaintances  for  analysis.  But 
there  was  one  old  friend  who  bc'gan  to  assume  importance. 
Duncan  Grant  had  been,  as  we  have  seen,  a companion  of  child- 
hood. But  now  he  was  coming  of  age  and  had  to  be  considered 
anew,  weighed  and  judged  on  his  own  merits,  no  longer  to  be 
taken  for  granted.  This  was  a great  topic  for  consideration.  It 
was  indeed  assumed  from  the  beginning  that  he  was  “ perfect  ”, 
but  the  precise  shade  of  perfection  had  to  be  carefully  defined. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  G,  L.  Strachey^  i8th  October  igof) 

I am  writing  in  the  train  and  have  seen  Mr.  Shaw’s  . . . play. 

Is  it  monomania  — this  colossal  moral  superiority  that  we  feel  ? 

* Secretary  of  the,Foyal  Academy  since  1913  and  elder  brother  of  Mr.  Henry 
Lamb,  the  well-known  paintei. 


AET.  22]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  in 

I get  the  feeling  that  most  of  the  rest  never  see  anything  at  all  — too 
stupid  or  too  wicked.  The  contrast  between  you  and  Duncan,  and 
Mr.  Shaw’s  view  of  the  world  has  been  too  violent. 


G.  L.  Strachey  to  J,  M.  Keynes^  2nd  J^'ovember  igo^ 

Oxford  Union  Society. 

Here  I am,  a little  shattered.  Last  night  1 spent  wath  the 
Raleighs,  partly  at  a rather  dull  concert,  and  partly  listening  to  his 
consummate,  brilliance.  It  is  so  great  that  I think  it  practically 
amounts  to  a disease.  But  in  any  case  he  belongs  to  the  age  before 
the  flood  — the  prc-Dickinsonian  era  * which  is  really  fatal.  He  is 
not  interested  in  the  things  which  absorb  us  — result,  dead  silence  on 
my  part,  and  blank  boredom  on  his  — though  of  course  there  are 
compensating  moments.  He  might  be  one's  father. 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  G,  L.  SUachey^  12th  November  igog 

I forg(»t  to  tell  you  that  I read  my  ])aj)er  on  Beaut)  at  Dickinson’s 
last  Wednesday.  It  was  too  esoteric  and  1 did  not  feel  that  it  was 
much  of  a success.  Knox  (of  course)  was  highly  enraged  at  anybody’s 
writing  such  rubbish.  The  discussion  dull : Pigou  subtle  but  not 
very  relevant ; Shejrpard  and  Dickinson  in  practical  agreement : 
and  the  rest  cpiitc  foggy. 

Don’t  fail  to  come  up  next  week. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  K SUaehey^  igt/i  November  igog 

I find  Economics  in  rea singly  satisfactory,  and  1 think  I am 
rather  good  at  it.  1 wart  to  manage  a railwj^y  or  organise  a Trust. 
...  It  is  so  easy  and  fascinating  to  master  the  principles  of  these 
things. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Strachey^  23rd  November  igog 

Marshall  is  continually  pestering  me  to  turn  professional  eco- 
nomist and  writes  flattering  remarks  on  my  papers  to  help  on  the 
good  cause.  Do  you  think  there  is  anything  in  it I doubt  it.  1 
could  probably  get  employment  here  if  I wanted  to.  But  prolonging 
my  existence  in  this  place  would  be,  I feel  sure,  death.  The  only 

* This  refers  to  G.  Lowes  Dickinson  ; the  passing  reft  renc(‘  is  a notewoi  ihy  tribute 
to  the  importance  of  his  influ<'nre.  ' 


1 12  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1906 

question  is  whether  a government  office  in  London  is  not  death 
equally. 

I suppose  I shall  drift. 

Later  this  term  excitement  was  provided  by  the  appearance 
of  his  brother  Geoffrey,  who  came  from  Rugby  to  seek  a scholar- 
ship at  Pembroke  College,  which  he  obtained.  At  Rugby  he  had 
become  great  friends  with  Rupert  Brooke.  He  brought  Rupert 
and  two  other  Rugby  boys  to  stand  for  Scholarships,  and  they 
were  all  put  up  in  Harvey  Ro^»d.  Rupert  obtained  a scholarship 
at  King's. 

Geoffrey  and  Rupert  were  plunged  into  the  Cambridge  milieu. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Stmehey^  ylh  Decembei  /poj 

I’here  has  been  a long^  party  here  this  evening  — five  hours 
through  which  Hobby,  Norton,  Sheppard,  Furness,  Rupert,  and  my 
brother  have  floated  for  slurrter  or  for  longer  periods. 

Maynard  was  conscious  that  his  brother  Geolfrey  was  effacing 
himself  in  the  extreme  anxiety  that  Rupert  should  shine  and  do 
himself  justice. 

In  the  intervals  of  psychology  and  book-collc(‘ting,  Maynard 
returned  to  his  old  love  of  genealogy  and  read  out  a history  of 
the  Keynes  family  in  his  home  on  Christmas  day. 

During  the  autumn  G.  E.  Moore  read  his  paper  on  “ The 
Nature  and  Reality  of  Objects  of  Perceptiem  " to  the  Aristotelian 
Society.'  This  caused  great  excitement. 


G.  L.  Siiachey  to  J.  A/.  Keynes^  2nd  Januan  igoC 

Who  d’you  think—  talking  of  intellects  — has  been  here  half 
to-day?  Moore.  He  was  really  splendid.  We  talked  about  the 
Society  and  his  Aristotelian  paper  from  2.30  to  4.30.  Then  he  sang. 
Pippa^  pronounced  him  the  most  charming  person  slie  knew.  He 
did  not  seem  to  understand  the  objection  against  electing  Freshmen 
— said  that  if  they  w^ere  WT)rth  anything  they’d  stand  up  against  us. 
I wonder.  On  the  question  of  secondary  qualities,  etc.  he  was  quite 
superb.  He  had  used  an  argument  in  his  paper  about  hens  and  eggs 
which  Hawtrey  said  was  “ too  simple  ”,  It  w^as,  that  in  order  to 
know  that  hens  laid  eggs,  someone  must  have  seen  both  a hen  and  an 


Rrpiihli'.ht'd  in  his  Phil osofthical  Studies,  1922. 
^ Miss  Philippa  StracJi«*y,  Lytton’s  sister. 


ABT.  22] 


IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  113 

egg.  Hawtrey  denied  this  — because  the  fact  that  hem  laid  eggs 
determined  your  mental  state,  and  therefore  you  could  infer  it  from 
your  mental  state.  Moore  said  he  could  only  say  such  things  because 
his  head  was  full  of  philosophical  notions.  Quite  magnificent ! I 
was  with  him  heart  and  soul.  But  I wish  I could  tell  you  more  ol* 
what  he  said.  . . . 

J,  M.  Keynes  to  G,  L.  Straihey,  lyth  Januaty  igoG 

Oh  ! I have  undergone  conversion.  I am  with  Moore  absolutely 
and  on  all  things  — even  secondary  qualities.  It  happened  while 
arguing  with  Ernst  — who  has  read  P.  E.  ^ st  ven  times.  — Something 
gave  in  my  brain  and  I saw  everything  (ptite  cl(Mrly  in  a flash.  But 
as  the  whole  thing  depends  on  intuiting  the  Universe  in  a particular 
way  — I see  that  now  — there  is  no  liope  of  converting  the  world 
except  by  Conversion,  and  that  is  prctt>  liopc^les*-  T f is  nut  a question 
of  argument;  all  depends  upon  a particular  twist  in  the  mind, 

J.  M\  Keynes  to  6'.  L.  Strachey^  20ih  Januaty  igoG 

I really  believe  I would  leave  Cambridge  and  come  to  London 
at  once  — l)ut  for  one  reason.  I supjx)se  the  So(  iety  must  be  put 
on  its  legs  again  or  at  any  1 ate  one  has  to  try . 

I labour  for  my.sclf  most  of  the  time,  but  I am  ceitainly  labouring 
for  future  generations  in  this. 

But  I am  really  pretty  cheerful  - dtring  a little  more  work  than 
you  I expect,  but  vriy  little  for  Swithin  has  been  here  and  1 have 
hardly  got  staiied. 

So  zealous  were  they  for  the  Society  that  Stiachey  wrote  as  follows 

from  Mentone : - 

G.  L.  Stiachey  to  J.  M.  Keynes^  21st  February  igoG 

Did  I tell  you  that  I had  a melancholy  and  very  veiy  Swithin- 
esque  letter  before  I departed He  seemed  to  be  pietty  liopcless, 
but  to  be  looking  forward  to  a visit  from  you.  Must  you  go  on  a 
Saturday?  Why  not  in  the  middle  of  the  week?  Isn’t  it  rather 
terrible  to  leave  those  children  [i.e.  new  members  of  the  Society]  to 

the  tender  mercy  of and ! — Those  infants  in  ai  ms ! — 

However,  I hope  you  will  manage  to  cheer  him  up  when  you  do  go, 
and  tiy  to  persuade  him  to  send  something  to  the  Independent,^ 
* Principia  Ethica, 

2 Wilhm  eight  >ears  Keynes  lead  twenty  papers  to  the  Society  ! 

The  Independent  Review.  Sec  p.  63. 


1 


114  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1906 

It  was  really  very  wicked  of  him  to  have  destroyed  the  paper  on 
Virgil.  But  he  is  wicked  — Never  mind,  though  ! He  exists. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Strachey^  21st  Febiuaiy  igo6 

I am  studying  Ethics  foi  my  Civil  Service. 

It  is  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  wonder  and  ori(fwahty  of  Mooic ; 
]>eople  are  already  beginning  to  talk  as  if  he  weie  only  a kind  of 
logic -chopping  eclectic.  Oh  why  can’t  they  see  * 

How  amazing  to  think  that  ve  and  only  we  know  the  ludimcnts 
of  a true  theory  of  ethic  ; lor  nothing  can  he  moie  ccitain  than  that 
the  broad  outline  is  tiue  \Vhat  is  the  w oriel  doing  ^ It  does  damned 
well  bung  it  home  to  it'ad  books  wiitten  befoic  PE  1 even  begin  to 
agree  with  Moore  about  Sidgwuk  — that  he  was  a wicked  cdifactious 
person. 

Meanwhile  he  read  a paper  on  “ Egoism  ” in  Cambridge, 
and  ill  (Oxford  he  opened  a sad  discussion  ” at  the  Jowett 
Society  alter  a paper  on  lime  and  the  Absolute  At  about 
this  time  he  read  Moore’s  papei  on  the  “ Objects  ol  Peiceplion  ”, 
and  was  deeply  inipiessed.^ 


J,  M.  Keyrm  to  G L.  Shadin^  jtli  Match  igob 

1 have  just  come  away  hoin  tea  with  Bc‘a/lt\  and  it  i'*  plain  that 
he  IS  ically  quite*  unspoilt  . . . 

A iiKin  c.ilkd  lUckci  ^ was  tluie  aiick  accoiding  to  Swithin,  is 
alwass  thcie  I am  not  c nlhusiastic  aliout  llecker,  serni- 

foic'ign,  willi  a ste«uh  languid  flow  and,  I am  told,  an  cc[uall\  steads 
pioduclion  of  jioerns  and  plavs  which  aie  just  not  bad  . . . 


fr.  L,  StiaeJuy  to  J,  M.  Ao’wri,  uth  Maich  jejoG 

I am  glad  you  are  seeing  a good  deal  of  James  and  Norton  ; for 
I suppose  that  means  you  are  at  anv  rate  en  route  to  becoming 
intimate  with  the  foimei  as  well  as  the  latter  . . 

I suppose  It  leallv  doesn’t  mattei  very  much  win  ihcr  )ou  get  into 
the  C S or  not,  does  it  ^ If  you  didn’t,  wouldn’t  you  get  a fellowship, 
and  take  rooms  in  the  Temple?  That  you  might  do  in  any  case  — 
veiy  charming.  Oh  dcai  me  ! When  will  my  Heaven  be  realised  ^ 

' At  one  point  he  woil^ed  lh<  doctrine  of  this  paper  into  his  artfunient  in  the 
7 realise  on  Probability  ,biit  the  rele\ancc  is  not  altogetlier  clear  ’ 

^ James  riioy  llecker,  the  poet. 


AET  22] 


IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  115 

— My  Castle  in  Spain  Rooms,  you  know,  for  you,  Duncan  and 
Swithin,  as  fixtures  — Woolf  of  course,  too,  if  we  could  line  him  fiom 
Ceylon ; and  several  suites  for  guests.  Can  you  conceive  anything 
more  supieme  ! I should  write  liagedies;  you  would  revolutionise 
political  economy,  Swithin  would  compose  French  poetiy,  Duncan 
would  paint  our  poitiaits  in  cvciy  conceivable  combination  and 
permutation,  and  Woolf  would  criticise  us  and  out  woiks  without 
lemorsc. 

About  this  time  Sidgwick\  Memou  appealed.  Maynaid 
leac  ted  stiongly  and  immediately  sent  otFhis  comments  to  Swithin- 
bank  and  Stiaclicy.  I shall  quote  the  letter  to  Swithinbank, 
because  there  can  be  no  suspicion  that  his  tone  might  hive 
been  influenced  by  the  leceiver.  It  is,  so  to  speak,  a key  to  his 
twentieth-century  revolt  against  the  accepted  standaids  ot  the 
nineteentli.  -And  indeed  it  may  be  Tc'gaidcd  liom  a wdder  point  ol 
view.  Docs  it  not  epitomise  the  geneial  change  m attitude  among 
thinking  people  ^ 

1.S  leading  his  lettei  we  may  lecall  Strachey’s  book  on  Ennmnt 
\ Kioiiam^  in  which  revcied  figures  of  the  nineteenth  centuiy 
were  pulled  ofl  theii  pedestals.  Keynes’s  ciiticisin  is  moie 
decisive  evidence  of  a revolution  in  thinking,  because  while 
Stiachey’s  Victor ian<?  were  persons  ol  whose  eminenc  e theie  might 
have  been  two  views  even  among  contempoiaiies,  the  high 
integrity  and  moial  nobility  of  Sidgwick  were  disputed  by  none. 
Again,  in  the  case  of  Strachey  there  ma\  be  some  doubt  regarding 
the  intcrpictatuai  lie  put  upon  the  couise  of  c^vents,  while  in 
the  case  of  Sidgwick  the  facts  weic  nowise  in  dispute.  It  is  thus 
a jnire  case  of  revaluation;  w^c  consider  those  altitudes  of  mind 
which  seemed  so  noble  to  his  conteinpor*  ries  and  ask  whether 
we  do  indeed  regard  them  as  noble. 

A further  point  may  be  noted  in  this  connection.  Keynes’ 
style  of  attack  upon  Woodrow  Wilson  and  the  other  peace-makeis 
has  been  thought  to  have  been  influenced  by  Strachey’s  method 
in  Eminent  Vuiorian^^  which  had  recently  appeared  Keyne'^’ 
reaction  to  the  Sidgwick  Memoir  suggests  that  his  mind  had  this 
bent  twelve  years  earlier.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
in  this  he  was  influenced  by  Strachey  rather  than  conversely. 
When  Strachey  received  Keynes’  letter  he  had  not  read  the 
Memoir;  after  reading  it  he  cordially  agreed.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  point  at  issue  is  not  the  truth  or  falsity  of  certain  theological 
dogmas,  but  the  question  of  honesty  with  oneself. 


ii6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1906 

And  just  because  that  was  the  question,  it  seems  worth  quoting 
tributes  from  two  men  who  are  diametrically  opposed  examples 
of  the  Victorian  tradition.  Bishop  Gore  was  an  Anglican  church- 
man of  rare  quality,  whose  high  spirituality  made  a deep  im- 
pression on  all  who  knew  him.  His  tribute  to  the  free-thinking 
Sidgwick  is  therefore  particularly  notable.  Speaking  at  a meeting 
in  Cambridge,  after  Sidgwick’s  death,  he  said  : 

But,  ol  course,  it  w«is  impossible  to  know  him  without  feeling  that 
incomparably  the  most  impres-^ive  thing  about  him  was  his  char- 
acter. . . . When  I came  away  from  the  last  interview  with  him  . . 
there  was  only  one  thought  which  came  to  my  mind,  in  which  1 
seemed  able  to  sum  uj)  and  express  the  impression  which  was  left 
upon  me,  and  it  was  the  most  sacied  of  all  promises  “ Blessed 
are  the  puie  in  luatt  ; foi  the>  shall  see  God  ^ 

At  the  other  extreme  was  Mr.  F.  C.  Schiller,  pragmatist 
philosopher  and  of  extreme  modernity  by^  the  standards  of  the 
time.  Indeed  he  wms  regarded  as  a dangerous  character  among 
Oxford  philosophers  well  into  the  twentieth  century. 

After  a few  piefatois  lemarks,  in  which  he»depi et atecl  the  in- 
tention of  meiely  dialectical  relulation,  Sidgwick  read  what  seemed 
to  me  - - perhaps  because  1 felt  a stiange  touch  of  solemnity  which 
I could  not  account  for  the  most  lucid,  sincere  and  impiessive 
piece  o(  philosophic  ciiticisrn  which  it  had  even  been  my  privilege 
to  hear.^ 


J.  M,  Keynes  lo  B,  W.  Sioilhinbank^  2yih  Manh  igoG 

Have  you  read  Sidgwack’s  Life  * It  seems  to  be  the  subject  of 
conversation  ncjw  Wry  interesting  and  depressing  and,  the  first 
part  particularly,  very  important  as  an  historical  document  dealing 
with  the  mind  ol  the  period.  Really  - but  you  must  read  it  yourself. 
He  never  did  anything  but  wonder  whether  Christianity  was  true 
and  prove  that  it  wasn’t  and  hope  that  it  was.  He  even  learnt 
Arabic  in  order  to  read  Cicnesis  in  the  original,  not  trusting  the 
authorised  translators,  which  does  seem  a little  sceptical.  And  he 
went  to  Germany  to  see  what  Ewald  had  to  say  and  fell  in  love  with 
a professor’s  daughter,  and  wrote  to  his  dearest  friends  about  the 
American  Civil  War. 

* Cambridge  Umiersity  Reporter,  7th  D«*ccmbcr  1900  Report  of  a meeting  for  pro- 
moting a memoiial  to  <,he  late  Henry  Sidgwick 

* Henry  Stdgwick  A Memoir,  p 586. 


AET.22]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LITE  117 

I wonder  what  he  would  have  thought  of  us , and  I wonder  what 
we  think  of  him  And  then  his  conscience  incredible  There  is 
no  doubt  about  his  moral  goodness  And  yet  it  is  all  so  dtcadfuUy 
depressing  — no  intimacy,  no  clear-cut  ci  isp  boldness  Oh,  1 suppose 
he  was  intimate  but  he  didn’t  seem  to  have  anything  to  be  intimate 
about  except  his  n lii» lous  doubts  And  he  rt  *ill>  ought  to  have  got 
over  that  a little  soonei  , liecausc  he  knew  tliat  the  thing  wasn’t  tiue 
peifectly  ^vcll  from  the  beginning  The  last  part  is  all  about  ghosts 
and  All  Balfoui  1 hive  ncvei  found  so  dull  a book  so  absoibing 

It  IS  deal  that  eaily  in  this  last  >cai  he  abandoned  tin  idea 
of  taking  a second  Tripos  and  contented  liiniscll  with  working 
for  the  Civil  S^ivice  cxainiii  ition  As  late  as  8th  Apnl  Maisball 
was  still  anxious  that  he  should  take  the  Eionomas  Iiipos* 
But  Alaynaid  was  piobably  dtUimined  to  sample  life  in  London 
(onlinucd  itsideiice  in  ( ambiiclge  would  be  too  deadening 
In  his  own  person  Mai  shill  was  not  the  man  to  tip  the  scales 
lor  Ma^naid  He  Ik  longed  csseiitiallv  to  the  Sidgwick  era,  and, 
although  dilUient  111  man)  wavs  hid  the  Victoiian  tunt  Had 
Marshall  combined  Ins  economic  eminence  with  the  personal 
qualities  of  G E Afoore,  Alaynarcl  might  have  been  won  over 
and  have  given  his  whole  mind  to  ceonomies  at  an  eailiei  elite 
Yet  that  might  not  have  been  to  the  beneht  of  Ins  economics  in 
the  long  lun 


7 \1  Ktynes  lo  K 11  DnnJas^  i jth  SipUmhtr  i()o6 

\musing  that  )ou  h wc  met  Mai  di  ill  A very  gicat  m in  but  I 
suppose  1 ithfi  a sill)  ont  inhispiivatc  (hiiartcr  Alls  ischanning, 
isn’t  she  2 

‘ Di  Ktyjits  Diai> 

I do  not  niy  on  this  It  tier  is  sole  i\idcncr  if  r his  Ittlini;  about  Miisliall  as  i 
Him  On  niou  thin  one  occasuui  m pii\att  (onvcisatioii  when  I assuiitd  i tone 
of  revennee  due  to  a gn  it  one  m speakinei  ol  \1ai shill  Maynitd  sftmfd  anxious 
to  1 01  net  my  misappn  h<  nsion  “He  wis  an  utttily  ibsuid  ptison,  you  knjw 
The  (fonomic  student  who  iiffts  to  know  Marshalls  tconomie  writings  wfll,  soon 
becomes  unconscious  of  their  intensely  Vit Iona u moril  outlook  The  point  w is 
brout>ht  home  to  me  vividly  alter  many  ye.  us  of  tc  uhinE:  Marshall,  bv  a pupil  from 
the  r ai  West  of  the  United  Stales  i giftc  d Rhodes  S(  hoi  ir  whcj  c ime  to  me  and  said 
buic.lv  you  c iiiiiot  (xptet  me  to  read  all  that  dii\tl  1 w is  dulv  honihtd  and 
prepaied  myself  to  deliver  a seveie  Icctuie  on  my  pupils  total  iiicapiciiy  to  pass 
]udgment  on  this  gieat  ceonomic  el  issie  when  I realised  th  it  it  was  not  the  economic 
ispeets  with  which  he  was  qiiarrelhiig,  but  the  b ic kfj^i oiincl  ot  \i(torim  moiality 
He  < itc^orically  lefused  lo  it  ad  the  Piinapie^  and  I h id  tf)  fiad  other  means  foi  him 
to  ic  (I  irc  economic  \\  isdom 


ii8  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1906 

Earlier  in  the  year  Mrs  (Alys)  Russell*  had  proposed  that 
Maynard  should  join  her  sister  (Mrs  Berenson)  in  Italy  for  Easter. 
Geoffrey  Scott/  then  an  undenjraduate  at  New  Collejje,  would 
be  of  the  party.  This  was  arran^^ed  Mrs  Berenson  took  the 
two  young  men  for  a tour  of  Tuscan  sightseeing 


7 M Keanes  io  G L SUachey^  2nd  \p)il  igo6 

Mir>  was  just  the  persfm  travel  with  in  a motor  for  her 
incredible  competence  as  hostess,  all  the  arrangements  for  one’s 
(omfoit  wcic  complete  She  was  full  of  1 1 ah  in  and  money  and 
which  hotel  w is  be  st  and  wh  it  food  they  c ould  be  si  e ook  Wc  must 
hive  cost  he.1  pint^  eif  gold  fen  everything  down  to  cntiancc  fees 
to  g ille  I ICS  was  paid 


Also  she  rous  with  Hughtei  the  whole  time,  illows  you  te)  Hugh 
at  he  I,  ind  never  woine  > one  And  when  she  journ  ihsed  about  the 
pictuies,  Scott  w IS  ilw  lys  tluic  to  in  ike  the  ippiopiiite  refniik 
I he  Costelloe  fern  lies  R i\  ind  Karin,  don  t tilk  much  But  they 
did  very  wclM  Seott  is  dieadfully  Oxfoid  % soit  oi  lesthetie 
person , and  of  eouise  his  point  of  view  alw  i\s  seems  to  me  a little 
sheicking,  but  we  ue  quite  happy  together  I have  never  seen 

the  acstlutie  point  of  \]<w  so  close  1 find  T olijec  t to  it  on  high 
nioial  giounds  though  1 haielly  know  why  It  seems  to  tulle 
de liberate U with  saeicd  le  ility  But  isn  t this  1 ithe  1 e int  ^ 

Maynaicl  had  prudently  aTiinged  with  Gcoflrev  Scott  to  ha\e  a 
time  working  alone  togcthei  at  Siena  They  then  pioreedcd  to 
stay  with  the  Beicnsons  at  Settign  mo  ne  ir  I loiencc,  where  there 
was  a Luge  p iity  of  voung  I idles 


J M Korns  to  G I Sttadio^  15th  April  jgof) 

I \ e no  ne  ws  unless  I desc  nbe  our  way  of  life  I seem  to  liave  fallen 
in  love  with  Ray  a little  bit  I he  comfoit  heie  is  of  course 

incredible , the  ey  presses  and  sun  and  moon  and  the  amazing 

^ Keitrmd  Russell  s fiist  wife  aid  sister  of  tlit  Ixautiful  writtr,  I o£;dii  Pearsall 
Smith 

* Ihc  author  of  Ihe  A)chiUctwe  of  Humanism  ind 
^ Mis  Berenson 

^ Ray  and  Karin  were  the  daughtc  rs  of  Mis  B(  rt  nson  by  her  hist  husband  Ra> 
afterwards  married  Ohvci  Strachc)  ^lyttons  tldci  biotlur)  and  Kaiin  lU'iriied 
Adiian  Stephen  (Phoby  s younger  brothei) 


AET.  23]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  119 

gardens  and  villas  in  which  wc  picnic  eveiy  day  high  above  Florence 
have  reduced  me  to  a lump  of  Italian  idleness. 

We  go  to  l)ed  later  and  later  and  gradually  find  methods  of 
working  fresh  meals  into  the  day.  Last  night  it  was  nearly  fiv<' 
before  wc  retired. 

Oh.  Scott  is  very  amusing  hut  he  makes  me  ang  y by  plotting 
at  the  greatest  inconvenience  to  himself  never  to  lc*ive  me  and 
Ray  alone.  Everybody  tiics  to  biing  it  about  occasionally,  but,  no, 
he  forbids.  . . . 

On  his  return  journey  he  joined  his  brother  Geoffrey  in  Ger- 
many amid  mountain  snows.  Geoffrey,  too,  was  acquiring  an 
interest  in  high  mountains,  and,  unlike  Maynard,  maintained 
climbing  as  a hobby.  He  became  quite  an  cxpeit  rock  climber’, 
and  sermetimos  went  on  expc'dilions  with  Geoigc’  \lall017. 

One  more  term  before  the  Givil  Service  examination.  'The 
cycle  of  ^iludies  had  ccunc  round  to  history  and  political  science. 
There  were  various  distractions:  sailing  with  Knox  on  the  Ouse, 
playing  golf  at  Royston,  going  to  a farewell  dinner  for  Robin 
Furness  who  was  oil  to  Egypt,  theatres  in  London.  And  he  still 
spent  much  time  among  his  own  friends  at  Gainbiidgc.  Even 
his  mother,  for  all  her  wise  patience,  began  to  get  anxious  about 
his  lack  of  application  to  work  at  this  tiiue. 

For  the  examination,  which  spread  itself  out  from  3rd  August 
to  25th  August,  she  took  a Hat  in  London  at  33  Coleherne  Court. 
This  time  it  was  to  his  young  friend  James  th«it  he  wrote  a ai  du 
cmr. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  James  Si,  uhey,  2nd  August  1006 

I was  glad  to  get  your  letter  this  evening  when  I returned  pale 
and  dry  in  the  pen  from  a three  hours'  disquisition  on  “ Drama, 
Melodrama  and  Opera  They  are  rather  a crew  — my  com- 
petitors; a few  of  the  more  presentable  1 knew,  but  good  God ! I 
trembled  for  our  Indian  Empire  when  I sawr  the  bulk  of  them.  It  is 
rumoured  that  there  are  very  few  vacancies  in  the  Home  and  none 
in  the  Treasury.  . . . Do  come.  1 hope  1 shan’t  have  quite  sunk 
beneath  the  weight  of  my  fate.  , . . 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  James  Stmihey^  6th  August  igoG 

I am  doing  my  papers  all  right,  but  am  feeling  rather  black  and 
perfectly  aimless.  . . . 


120  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1906 

I wonder  why  “ someone  to  talk  to  ” is  so  comforting. 

And  how  superb  a “ happy  marriage  ” would  be,  but  might  not 
one  want  to  change  sometimes  ? I doubt  whether  marriage  by  itself 
is  a very  ingenious  institution.  But  marriage  and  divorce  if  necessary 
— that  is  from  heaven. 

Well  perhaps  it  may  happen  to  someone  some  day.  . . . 

Unable  to  bear  it  any  longer,  he  went,  in  the  midst  of  the 
examination,  to  stay  with  the  Strachey  family  at  Betchworth,  at 
a house  they  had  taken  within  reach  of  London  for  the  summer. 
Miss  Philippa  Strachey  recalls  his  extreme  insouciance  and  her 
taking  him  to  task.  “ Really,  Mr.  Keynes,  is  this  a pose,  or  don’t 
you  care  whether  you  get  into  the  Civil  Service  or  not?  ” He 
reassured  her  ; he  had  worked  it  all  out ; he  was  quite  confident 
that  he  would  be  among  tlie  first  ten ; and,  as  he  didn't  mind 
whether  he  was  first  or  tenth,  why  bother  ? Did  this  express  his 
true  mind  ? If  it  did,  it  was  extremely  characteristic  — to  come 
to  a crisp  decision  about  the  whole  matter  and  bother  no  more. 
Actually  his  position  among  the  first  ten  was  a very  impdrtant 
question.  The  list  of  vacancies  only  appeared  after  the  examina- 
tion, and  Maynard  decided  that  there  were  t)nly  two  that  ho 
would  care  to  accept  — the  Treasury  and  the  India  Office.  The 
result  came  out  at  the  end  of  September  — he  was  second.  As 
his  father  wrote  in  his  Diary,  it  was  “ a wonderful  achievement  ” 
considering  how  little  work  he  had  done  in  preparation.  The 
first  on  the  list  (who  had  a long  lead  over  Maynard)  chose  the 
Treasury,  and  thus  Maynard  had  the  India  Office.  Had  he  been 
first  ? That  would  indeed  have  required  more  than  a little  last- 
minute  cramming  at  Betchwoith.  Still,  if  he  had  worked  really 
hard,  he  might  have  done  it.  And  then  what  ? Had  he  gone  to 
the  Treasury,  he  probably  would  not  have  come  out  after  two 
years.  Would  he  as  a permanent,  and  not  a temporary.  Civil 
Servant  have  resigned  at  Paris  in  1919  ? What  would  have  been 
the  balance  of  good  ? Rising  towards  the  top  of  the  Treasury  in 
the  inter-war  period,  would  he  have  achieved  a better  conduct 
of  British  finances?  We  can  hardly  doubt  that  Mr.  Churchill, 
the  innocent  victim,  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  in  the  crucial 
years  (1925-29),  of  the  old  orthodox  school  at  the  Treasury  and 
the  Bank  of  England,  would  have  found  in  Keynes  a man  after 
his  heart’s  desire.  We  may  guess  that  Keynes  would  have 
influenced  the  mind  of  Benjamin  Strong  of  the  Federal  Reserve 
Bank  of  New  York.  Could  he  and  Strong’s  successors  between 


akt.23]  in  quest  of  a way  of  life  I2I 

them  have  availed  to  mitigate  the  great  slump  of  1929-32  ? Then 
the  Nazis  would  not  have  come  into  power.  A fascinating  specula- 
tion ! But  then,  although  no  doubt  he  would  have  written  books 
— and  possibly  on  economics  — they  would  inevitably  have  been 
of  a different  character.  Valuable  analyses  we  might  have  had, 
but  the  strong  undercurrent  of  rebellion  could  hardly  have  been 
present,  and,  without  that,  would  his  works  have  had  comparable 
influence?  Miss  Strachey  evidently  asked  a very  pertinent 
question.  As  she  talked  to  Lytton’s  clever  friend,  it  could  not  have 
crossed  her  mind  that  perhaps  wars  and  horrors  ol' untold  dimen- 
sions hung  upon  the  answer  ! 

Before  the  result  was  known  he  gave  himself  a pleasant  lioliiay 
visiting  Mr.  Henry  Hobhouse  (Hobby's  father)  at  Hadspen,  his 
home  in  Somerset,  and  then  going  with  Lytton  and  James  and 
Norton  to  Scotland.  A last  wild  excess,  we  may  be  sure,  of  talk 
upon  the  old  subjects. 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  G,  L.  Strachey,  4th  Octohei  i()o6 

My  marks  liave  arrived  and  left  me  (miaged.  Rr'ally  knowledge 
seems  an  absolute  bar  to  success.  1 have  done  worst  in  the  c>nly  {v\o 
subjects  of  which  I possessed  a solid  knowledge  — Mathc'matics  and 
Economics.  I scored  more  marks  for  English  History  than  for 
Mathematics  is  it  credible  ^ For  Economics  I got  a 1 datively  low 
percentage  and  was  the  eiglith  or  ninth  in  or  der  of  merit  — whereas 
I knew  the  whole  of  both  papeis  in  a ically  elaliorate  way.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  Polilieal  Science,  to  whLdi  1 devotc*d  less  than  a fort- 
night in  all,  I was  easih  first  of  e\ei\hody.  1 was  also  fust  in  Logic 
and  Psyclioh^gy  .iiid  in  Essay. 

His  indignation  was  afterwards  crystallised  in  the  saying:  “I 
evidently  knew  more  about  licoiiomics  than  my  examiners 

* I am  unable  to  agree  with  Piofcssoi  K.  A.  CJ.  Robinson,  who  pub  in  a plea  tor 
the  examiners  in  his  fine  memoir  (Econorruu  Jownal  Maich  1947).  On  the  one  hand, 
wc  have  lo  consider  Keynes  absorbing  Economics  ihiough  every  pore  at  Ilaivcy  Road, 
correcting  Sidgwick’s  proofs,  reading  solidly  for  some  months  - and  for  him  that 
would  mean  massive  leading  — and  receiving  instiurtion  from  Marshall  and  from 
Pigou  at  the  weekly  breakfasts.  We  have  to  think  of  his  quick  absorptive  rapacity. 
When  reading  the  Principles y he  would  not  be  beguiled  by  its  apparent  facility ; he 
vvould  apprehend  at  once  the  bare  bones  of  the  argument.  In  his  papers  he  would 
no  doubt  have  discussed  the  difficult  mathematical  substratum,  carried  the  analysis 
further,  raised  abstruse  difficulties.  On  the  other  side,  we  have  to  think  of  the  extra- 
ordinarily small  number  of  people  in  England  on  whom  the  Clivil  Service  Commis- 
sioners had  to  draw,  who  were  capable  of  understanding  such,by-plav  with  Marshall. 
I have  the  advantage  over  Professor  Robinson  in  having  been  at  an  eminent  University 


122  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1907 

2 

For  the  next  two  years  his  life  was  divided  into  two  compart- 
ments, work  in  the  India  Office  and  study  of  the  theory  of  prob- 
ability. Of  these  the  former  was  much  the  less  important.  When 
at  the  end  of  two  years  he  resigned  from  the  India  Office  he  told 
Page  that  all  he  had  succeeded  in  achieving  during  that  time  was 
getting  one  pedigree  bull  shipped  to  Bombay.  This  was  no  doubt 
a Keynesian  exaggeration.  But  there  were  frequent  complaints 
of  his  having  nothing  to  do  during  office  hours.  “ Business  is 
very  slack  here.  1 did  not  do  one  minute’s  work  yesterday.”  * 
“ I have  not  averaged  an  hour’s  office  work  a day  this  week  so 
that  I am  well  up  to  date  with  the  dissertation.”  ^ He  was 
initially  posted  to  the  Military  Department.  In  November  Dr. 
Keynes  notes  that  Maynard  was  getting  into  the  habit  of  doing 
his  own  work  in  office  hours  ”.  None  the  less  when  he  was  offered 
a resident  clerkship  in  the  following  February,  he  conscientiously 
refused  in  the  interests  of  his  own  work,  although  assured  by  Sir 
Arthur  Godley,  the  Permanent  Secretary,  that  he  should  not 
overestimate  the  amount  of  evening  work  that  there  would  be 
at  the  office ! 

In  March  he  was  transferred  to  the  Revenue,  Statistics  and 
Commerce  Department,  where  work  became  more  interesting. 
He  had  to  compile  the  annual  report  on  The  Moral  and  Material 
Progress  of  India  ”,  He  did  not  see  eye  to  eye  with  the  authorities 
on  all  questions  oi  morality,  but  he  pleased  himself  by  translating 
these  matters  into  “ beautiful  curves  He  regretted  that  this 
part  of  his  report  would  be  for  ever  locked  in  secrecy. 


J.  Af.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Slrachey^  yth  Alauh  igoy 

I like  my  new  Department.  I have  not  mucli  tci  wiite  at  present, 
but  there  is  an  excellent  system  by  which  everything  comes  to  me  to 
read,  and  I read  it.  In  fact  there  is  so  much  to  read,  that  it  takes  me 
all  my  time.  Some  of  it  is  cpiitc  absorbing  — Foreign  Office  com- 
mercial negotiations  with  Germany,  quarrels  with  Russia  in  the 


(Gxford)  before  Kcoiiomics  became  the  subject  of  an  Honours  examination  (1923), 
and  I Imow  what  extraordinarily  jejune  stufl*  passed  muster  with  the  authorities  as 
economics  (Professor  Edgeworth  standing  apart  in  glorious  isolation)  ; and,  after  all, 
Oxford  was  contributing  a fair  proportion  of  those  who  sat  for  the  Civil  Service 
examination  — and  perhaps  even  occasionally  an  examiner  in  economics ! 

* Letter  to  Mrs.  Keynes,  9th  May  1907.  * Ditto,  6th  December  1907. 


aet.  23]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  123 

Persian  Gulf,  the  regulation  of  opium  in  Central  India,  the  Chinese 
opium  proposals  — I have  had  great  files  to  read  on  all  these  in  the 
last  two  days. 

I lunched  at  the  House  of  Lords  to-day,  and  Gosse  was  at  the 
next  table ; really  he  is  purely  a figure  of  fun,  and  the  company 
seemed  to  realise  it.  1 felt  very  pompous  smoking  and  drinking 
coffee  in  the  Library  afterwards. 

Yesterday  I attended  my  first  Committee  of  Council.  The  thing 
is  simply  government  by  dotaidiy  ; at  least  half  those  present  showed 
manifest  signs  of  senile  decay,  and  the  r(\st  didn’t  speak. 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L,  Stiachey^  iHlh  Apnl  i()oy 

I have  really  been  almost  overworked  in  this  ofiice.  I really 
believe  that  I have  written  almost  evTry  despatch  in  the  Department 
this  week.  * 

Dr.  Keynes  notes  in  his  Diary  that  he  is  liking  his  work  inui  li 
better;,  has  much  reading,  as  he  sees  all  papers  that  cuinc  into  the 
Department 

Somewhat  later  he  wrote  an  interesting  letter,  summarising 
his  experiences  <is  a Chvil  Servant.  Something  must  be  allow'ed 
for  the  frustration  of  youthful  enthusiasm,  something  for  his  not 
yet  seeing  clearly  the  inherent  limitations  in  any  central  depart- 
ment of  government,  discharging  administrative  duties  under 
parliamentary  control. 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  G,  L.  Stiachey^  i^lh  Septembe)  rgoy 

I’m  thoroughly  sick  of  this  place  and  would  like  to  r'esign.  Now 
the  novelty  has  worn  off,  I am  bored  nine-tenths  of  the  time  and 
rather  unreasonably  irritated  the  other  tenth  wdienever  I can't  have 
my  own  way.  It’s  maddening  to  have  thirty  peoirlc  who  *^an  reduce 
you  to  impotence  when  you’re  quite  certain  you  arc  right.  I am 
enraged  just  now  over  another  memorial.  A poor  man  has  been 
tonsured  for  doing  X,  and  after  repeated  memorials  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  India  has  now  memorialised  the  Secretary  of  State, 
vehemently  denying  that  he  ever  did  anything  of  the  kind.  I have 
demonstrated  quite  clearly'  that  he  is  wholly  innocent  of  X,  but  that 
if  he  had  been  charged  with  a quite  different  offence  Y,  and  if  he 
had  been  allowed  to  reply  and  the  thing  had  been  investigated,  he 
would  probably  have  deserved  c*ensure  for  Y.  But  it  seems  to  me 

0 

' Dr.  Keynes’  Diary,  yih  March  1907. 


124  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1907 

that,  whatever  else  is  done,  censure  for  doing  X should  be  cancelled. 
They  say  — No,  he  deserves  censure,  and  therefore  censure  must  be 
maintained. 

This  theory  that  if  even  a tolerable  face  can  be  put  on  the 
matter  Oovernment  never  withdraws  anything  — even  in  matters  of 
justice  — seems  to  me  quite  wrong  and  very  dangerous.  It  was  just 
the  same  in  the  affair.  — is  apparently  censured  for  negli- 
gence in  his  laboratoi  y.  Of  this  he  is  demonsti  ably  innocent.  But 
Government  maintain  their  position  because  an  entirely  diffeicnt 
reason  renders  it  undesirable  to  employ  him  again  in  his  old  position. 
It  is  quite  cleai  to  me  that,  whatever  they  do  subsequently,  censure 
for  the  thing  of  which  he  is  innocent  should  be  fiecly  withdrasv^n  first. 
(Don’t  mention  this  in  pulilic,  please.) 

Then  the  pieoc  cupation,  which  seems  characteiistic  of  officials, 
to  save  theit  own  skm,  is  fatal.  Drake’s  diead  of  taking  any  responsi- 
liihty  is  almost  pathetic  And  of  course  it  pi  events  any  original  or 
sporting  pioposal  evci  being  made.  With  this  machine  there  is  not 
the  least  chance  of  anything’s  bc'ing  done  lashly  or  precipitately; 
so  that  the  risk  to  India  of  lice  speech  in  the  India  Office  is  niK  But 
vou  may  be  “ snubbed  Loid  ! 

(3r  again,  the  public  wiite  in  to  obtain  iijormation  on  some 
point  One  h,is  mateiial  which  isn’t  in  the  least  secict  and  which 
may  prove  most  useful  to  them.  But  they  mustn’t  have  it  unless  it  is 
absolutely  ceitain  that  the  information  is  coriect  in  eveiy  detail - 
even  if  you  add  cptalifications  “ probably  ”,  “ as  far  as  we  know  ”, 
“ ^vlthout  guaranteeing  ”.  What  “ absolutel)  cctlain”  means  is 
that  soineboch  other  than  )ouiself  is  responsible  for  its  accuiacy. 

The  consecjuence  is  that  although  one  is  most  caieful  to  acknow- 
ledge letters  bv  return  of  post  and  to  spend  an  infinite  amount  of 
trouble  finding  out  what  is  absolutel)  certain  ”,  your  final  Icttci  to 
the  jnililic  is  not  worth  the  postage,  although  as  the  result  of  your 
investigation^  )ou  ma>  be  bubbling  with  infonmiticui  of  ordinary 
icliability. 

Like  your  impression  of  ITuist,  this  may  be  highl)  coloured  ; but 
I am  suie  it  is  substantial!)  just,  and  the  colouring,  like  that  in  the 
microscope  slides  of  dissc'c tions,  only  put  on  to  make  it  intelligible. 

All  iny  thoughts  are  on  Probability.  . . . 

He  had  a ‘‘  service  ” flat  at  125B  St.  James’s  Court,  He  had 
more  than  a fortnight’s  leave  at  Christmas  and  decided  to  go  oflT 
with  Lytton  somewhere.  Should  it  be  Paris  Expense  was  a 
drawback;  but  they  decided  that  the  cost  of  the  journey  and  a 
week  in  Paris  might  reasonably  be  kept  down  to  ^,5  a head. 
Maynard  had  a Uight  qualm  — it  seemed  rather  “ wicked  ” to 


aet.  23]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  125 

go  off  to  Paris.  In  the  event  they  went  to  Rye,  and  afterwards 
he  spent  Christmas  at  home. 

Although  Maynard  was  a humanist,  and  his  sympathies 
comprehended  the  female  sex,  he  did  not  show  any  marked 
leaning  towards  feminism  and  “ women’s  rights  ” in  the  narrower 
sense.  But  he  was  always  ready  to  enter  with  enthusiasm  into 
the  affairs  of  his  friends,  and  when  Miss  Pliilijjpa  Strachey 
became  deeply  involved  in  organising  a great  procession  anil 
demonstration  on  behaK'  of  the  Society  lor  Women’s  Sulfrage, 
his  services  were  at  her  disposal.  I’his  was  the  first  big  public 
demonstration  in  the  Women's  Suffrage  campaign  and  was  a 
notable  landmark.  Three  thousand  women  proceeded  on  a ^ cry 
wet  day  from  Hyde  Park  Corner  to  Exeter  Hall.  This  was 
afterwards  known  as  the  Mud  March  A I)and  had  to  be 
found,  and  Maynard  accompanied  Miss  Strachey  on  a dark  and 
foggy  winter’s  evening  to  Bermondsey,  where  the  location  of  th<' 
band  was  only  identifu'd  by  strains  of  practising  coming  from 
behir^d  a high  bleak  wall.  On  the  day,  he  was  put  in  charge  of 
arrangements  at  the  Exeter  Hall.  He  arrived  in  good  time  to 
make  the  necessary  plans  for  the  reception,  but  he  Ibund  the  hall 
barred  and  bolted.  Matters  looked  black.  Howrver.  he  managed 
to  get  it  opened  in  the  nick  of  time.  A IcttCT  is  extant  fioni  the 
Secretary,  Miss  Bompas,  thanking  him  for  his  v.iluable  services 
as  steward. 

In  the  Easter  vacation  he  went  to  Paris  and  sta\  ed  with  Duncan 
Grant,  and  afterwards  to  North  Mellon  in  Devon,  where  there 
was  quite  a party  iT  Mo(^re,  Strachey,  Bob  Trevelyan,  Sangei 
and  others. 

G.  L,  Strachey  to  B,  \\\  Swilliinhank,  'jist  Mmch  Tr)oy 

At  this  moment  Kc^ncs  is  lying  on  a rug  beside  me.  turning  o\(‘r 
the  leaves  of  a handbook  on  obstetrics  which  seems  to  ki  ep  him 
absorbed.  Norton  is  next  to  him  on  a eainp-stoi'l,  and  it  is  he  who 
is  writing  mathematics.  Next  to  him  is  Bol)  I’ri'vy,  under  an 
umbrella,  very  vague  and  contented,  and  planning  out  his  next  chef- 
d*(mvre,  I should  have  mentioned  that  I am  on  a basket  chair 
(with  plenty  of  cushions  in  ease  of  accidents),  and  that  I am  pcrfc'ctly 
happy,  as  1 am  writing  to  you  instead  of  doing  what  I ought  to  be 
doing,  viz.,  composing  a preface  to  Warren  Hastings.  . . . 

. . . Oh  dear ! Keynes  has  deserted  his  obstetrics  and  become 
absorbed  in  Norton’s  mathematics.  He  declares  that  gamma  is  a 


126  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1907 

function  of  theta,  but  Norton  thinks  that  he  is  integrating  PV  and  so 
none  of  it  will  do.  How  shocking.  . . . 

More  holidays  came  in  July,  and  he  went  off  mountaineering, 
not  with  the  superb  Young  this  time,  but  with  his  father,  his 
brother  Geoffrey,  and  Fay,  in  the  Pyrenees.  Unfortunately 
Dr.  Keynes  and  Geoffrey  had  to  return  unexpectedly  early; 
Maynard  found  his  way  down  with  Fay  to  the  hotel  at  Biarritz. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Slrachey^  ijlh  July  igoy 

You  would  adore  this  place  — so  do  I.  The  climate  is  absolute 
perfection  — never  a cloud,  never  hot,  never  cold.  And  the  food  - 
the  food  is  divine.  And  the  tea  shops,  not  Rumpelmeyer,  but  as  good, 
I think.  Yet  there  are  two  clouds.  I lose  the  most  appalling  sums 
at  Petits  Chevaux,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  I shalt  have  enough 
money  to  provide  any  meals  on  the  journey  home.  Last  night,  I 
finished  up  by  losing  forty  times  running;  and  I have  had  other 
spells  almost  as  bad.  [Fay  recalls  that  Maynard  did  his  utn^ost  to 
replenish  his  funds  for  gambling  by  drawing  on  him,  but  met  with 
no  success  !J 

The  other  cloud  is  the  ugliness  of  the  people  in  these  parts,  ini  hid- 
ing the  visitors.  I don’t  like  the  Basque  type  in  fact  it  is  hideous. 

But  then  I should  add  that  1 have  left  my  he.ut  in  Aragon,  the 
most  beautiful  country  in  the  world,  whence  1 have  lately^  returned, 
having  spent  thiee  days  in  a peasant’s  hut. 


About  a week  ago  I had  a letter  from  Godley  saying  that  he  had 
thought  it  light  to  call  Morley’s  * special  attention  to  my  Minute  on 
the  Madras  Malikhana  case,  and  enclosing  an  autograph  letter  of 
compliments  for  me  from  J.  M.  He  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he 
had  reversed  the  damned  Committee  and  agreed  with  me. 

Fay  also  recalls  that  at  this  period,  when  they  had  naturally 
disc  ussed  the  great  question  c»f  one’s  future,  it  never  crossed  his 
mind  that  Maynard  would  become  a professional  economist.  He 
assumed  that,  were  Maynard  to  return  to  academic  life,  it  would 
be  as  a philosopher.  In  writing  to  Pigou  in  the  following  winter, 
Maynard  said  that,  should  he  return  to  Cambridge,  his  field  of 
study  would  be  Logic  and  Statistical  Theory. 

Leave  certainly  seems  to  have  been  not  inadequate,  for  in  the 

* John  Morlcy  was  at  this  time  Secretary  of  State  for  India. 


AET.  24]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  127 

middle  of  October  we  find  him  settling  into  some  rooms  in  King’s 
College  to  pursue  his  researches  for  a fortnight.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  he  was  working  very  hard  on  Probability  at  this  time  - 
probably  harder  than  he  had  worked  for  many  years.  He  seems 
to  have  resisted  the  temptation,  for  which  this  residence  in  King’s 
during  the  first  fortnight  of  the  Michaelmas  term  provided  such  a 
unique  opportunity,  of  making  a minute  inspection  of  the  new 
arrivals. 

The  culmination  of  his  work  on  Probability  was  to  be  the 
submission  of  a dissertation  as  a candidate  for  a Fellowship  at 
King’s,  Each  year  King’s  oflers  a small  number  of  Pri/*'  Fellow- 
ships. Success  would  not  necessarily  mean  abandoning  one’s 
career  as  a Civil  Servant.  It  would  simply  be  an  honour  and 
carry  a very  small  stipend.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  clearly 
be  an  encouragement  to  return  to  Cambridge  Hie,  by  its  implica- 
tion that  one  was  of  the  necessary  standard. 

I’he  College  appointed  as  assessors  K.  Johnson,  Maynard’s 
old  ffiend  of  childhood,  and  Alfred  W^hitehead.  This  seemed 
sufikiently  pnipitious.  But  Maynard  was  not  elected.  It  was  a 
great  disappointment.  Page,  who  had  l^y  this  time  become  an 
eminently  proficient  mathematician,  and  Dobbs,  a classic,  w'cre 
the  successful  candidates.  The  election  was  hotly  contested  ; a 
Fellow  of  King's,  writing  the  next  day,  said  that  he  tht>ught  they 
must  have  voted  about  fifteen  times. 


J.  AL  Keynes  to  G.  L.  SUache}\  2yd  Match  t(jo8 

I have  had  a very  interesting  time  at  Cambridge  and  heard  all 
al)out  everything  from  Figou.  I ri^alh  think  it  was  sheer  l)ad  luck  - 
a hair  would  have  turned  the  balance ; also  a little  wickedness  on 
their  part,  for  P.  says  that  there  was  a solid  block  who  voted  against 
me  from  the  beginning  on  the  express  i^roufid  of  seniotity,  while  admitting 
that  on  merits  I was  better.  . . . 

I was  also  damaged,  I think,  by  Whitehead’s  report.  lie  is  a 
folhwer  (an  ardent  follower)  of  Venn  ! and  it  seems  to  me  from  his 
criticisms,  which  are  futile,  that  he  can  have  understood  veiy  little 
of  the  philosophy.  He  praised  the  formal  logic  and  the  mathe- 
matics. Johnson's  report  is  almost  as  favourable  as4t  could  possibly 
be.  I spent  most  of  Sunday  talking  to  iiim,  and  he  had  made  a great 
number  of  very  important  criticisms,  which,  with  the  exception  of 
one  fundamental  point,  are  probably  right,  and  practically  presented 
me  with  the  fruits  of  his  own  work  on  the  subject  which  have  extended 


128  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  ;i9o8 

over  years.  On  the  pure  logic  of  it  he  is,  1 think,  quite  superb  and 
immensely  beyond  anyone  else. 

Pigou  seems  to  have  struggled  nobly  on  my  behalf  — but  I will 
tell  you  details  to-morrow.  I still  have  the  subject  on  the  brain. 

Please  bring  Dai  win  vol.  ii. 

Yr. 

).  M.  Keynes 

Really  Whitehead's  report  was  not  rompetent.  Of  my  tw^o  most 
important  and  original  chapters,  which,  whatever  their  truth,  are 
entirely  novel,  he  says  “ are  really  excellent  discussions  and  exposi- 
tions, but  - as  I suspect  - contain  little  that  is  new  to  a fairly  well 
instructed  philosopher  While  Johnson  says  “ it  is  highly  original, 
veiy  neatly  executed,  and  meets  an  urgent  need  in  logical  science 
Whitehead  ought  not  to  ha\e  said  it  was  old,  unless  he  himself  knew 
of  some  pass.ige  wheic  it  had  been  said  before.  It  is  no  good 
“ suspecting  that  it  must  have  been  said  before,  because  it  seems 
reasonable.! 

The  reports  of  Johnson  and  Whitehead  were  both  vcry‘good, 
praising  the  dissertation  as  an  important  contribution  to  know- 
ledge. It  wMs  indeed  a lucky  college  to  hav/^  two  better  mtm  ! 
Whitehead,  it  is  true,  dealt  rather  roughly  with  certain  passages, 
but  on  l)ring  asked  by  Pigou  to  make  a further  statement,  he  said 
that  his  report  as  a whole  Itad  been  intended  as  ‘‘  very  favour- 
able All  his  friends  cncr)uragcd  Maynard  with  rosy  hopes  of 
sueecss  ill  the  following  year. 

Soon  after  this  the  ciucstion  was  mooted  whether  he  should 
not  return  to  Clam  bridge  without  a Fellowship.  His  father  had 
had  some  doubts  of  the  wisdom  of  his  giving  up  the  India  Office, 
even  with  a Fellowship,  and  wrote  in  his  Diary  before  the  result  of 
the  election  was  known  : “ He  w^ill  be  throwing  up  a certainty 
and  taking  risks.  That  fits  in  with  his  scheme  of  life,  not  with 
mine.'’ 

* Keynes  may  well  have  bedi  in  the  light  m this  criticism.  It  is  possible  that 
Whitehead  was  not  widely  read  in  philosophy  outside  his  range  at  this  iieiiod.  I 
remember  a remark  whkh  he  made  to  me  as  late  as  some  time  shoitlv  after  the  First 
World  War.  He  was  not  prcdispo.sed  to  expect  good  philosophy  to  emanate  from 
Oxford,  but  he  praised  KnnVs  Theory  of  Knowledire  by  H.  A.  Prichard,  on  the  ground 
that  it  made  it  unneressary  for  one  ever  to  think  of  reading  Kant,  flood  Kantian 
scholars  know  that  whatcv<*i  the  other  virtues  of  Prichard’s  book  - - and  it  was  a 
notable  philosophical  contiibution  — it  did  not  have  this  one.  Whitehead's  reading 
in  general  philosophy  became  moie  extensive  later.  It  was  not  his  professional  duty 
to  have  wide  philosophical  knowledge  until  he  was  appointed  to  the  Chair  at  Harvard 
in  1 924,  at  the  age  of  sixty-three. 


AEi.  24]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  129 

Alfred  Marshall  had  been  in  the  habit  of  paying  out  of  his 
private  pocket  two  sums  of  ;(^ioo  a year  each  in  order  to  sustain 
lecturers  for  the  new  Economics  Tripos  at  Cambridge,  and  in 
April,  although  soon  about  to  retire  from  his  Chair,  he  wrote  to 
Keynes  offering  him  a lectureship  in  Economics  on  these  terms. 
Keynes  was  interested.  The  Economics  I’ripos,  first  established 
in  1903,  had  been  looked  after  by  the  Special  Board  lor  Economics 
and  Politics.  When  this  met  on  3rd  June  1908,  it  had  to  fare  a 
minor  crisis  in  its  affaii's.  Pigou  had  just  been  elected  to  the 
professorship  in  place  of  Alfred  Marshall.  Marshall  had  at  once 
withdrawn  from  (chairmanship  of  the  Board,  and  on  3rd  June 
Dr.  J.  N.  Keynes  (Maynard’s  father)  was  elected  to  the  Chairman- 
ship in  his  place,  a position  he  was  to  hold  until  1919  ; but  at  this 
particular  meeting  Professor  James  Ward,  who  had  been  ('hair- 
man  of  tlic  Board  in  its  early  stages,  resumed  lil^  place.  Marshnll's 
self-effacement  went  further.  He  had  intimated  that  he  did  not 
intend  to  continue  lecturing.  This  was  to  give  Pigou,  who  was 
still  only  thirty-one,  a fair  chance  to  become  established  as  the 
principal  lecturer  upon  the  subject,  and  to  give  himself' the  greatest 
possible  amount  of  time  to  complete  the  volumes  planned  in 
succession  to  The  Principles  of  Economics,  Admirable  although  this 
policy  was,  it  meant  that  the  number  of  first-rate  lecturers  avail- 
able to  the  Board  was  reduced  by  one.  Meanwhile  a letter  was 
read  from  H.  S.  Foxwell,  who  was  very  sore  at  the  elc(‘lion  of 
Pigou,  so  much  his  junior,  to  the  Chair,  stating  that  he  did  not 
intend  to  continue  lecturing.  Furthermore,  Mr.  D.  H.  Mac- 
Gregor,* the  other  principal  lecturer  on  economics  for  the  Tripos, 
had  been  appointed  to  the  Chair  at  Leeds.  There  was  evidently 
sore  need  for  replenishment ! A letter  was  read  from  Pigou, 
generously  (jffering  to  pay  £200  from  his  private  pocket  for  two 
lecturers,  as  Marshall  had  done.  The  Board  decided  to  offer  one 
of  these  lectureships  to  Walter  Layton,-  and  the  other  to  the  young 
Keynes. 

On  5th  June  Keynes  resigned  from  the  India  Office.^  His 
father  made  him  an  allowance  of /^loo  a year;  he  was  to  have 
^100  a year  from  Pigou ; that  was  all  the  certainty.  He  would 
undoubtedly  earn  money  by  lecturing  and  taking  pupils,  but  the 
rates  were  low  in  those  days  and  there  were  barely  more  than 

‘ Diunimond  Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  Oxford,  1922-45. 

^ Now  Lord  Layton,  distinguished  ccomimist  and  authority  on  international 
aflairs,  and  editor  of  the  Economist  newspaper  from  1922  to 

^ He  was  succeeded  in  his.  position  there  by  Mr.  (now  Sir  Cecil)  Kisch. 

K 


130  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908 

twenty  men  in  the  whole  university  reading  for  the  Economics 
Tripos.  Should  he  succeed  in  being  elected  to  the  King’s  Fellow- 
ship in  the  following  March,  he  would  get  a stipend  of  ;;{^I20  a 
year  It  suited  him  to  take  the  nsk. 


J M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  N Kiytus^  iSlhJul)  igo8 

I have  finished  up  with  a week  of  quite  haid  work,  and  have  been 
in  charge  of  the  Department  loi  the  greater  part  of  the  last  two  days 
It  seems  quite  like  dying  initiating  stages  in  pieces  of  work  which 
move  heavily  on,  knowing  that  one  will  never  see  the  outcome  I 
spent  the  morning  mistering  the  arrangement  of  the  Customs 
Department  - the  knowledge  dies  with  me  But  I have  no  Kgrets 
— not  even  now  that  it  has  c oin^  to  it  not  one 

In  these  two  ycais,  he  had  gained  the  knowledge  of  how  a 
Government  Department  works  One  might  almost  say  that  such 
knowledge  should  be  icgaidcd  as  an  essential  pait  of  an  economist  s 
education  • He  had  acquired  an  interest  in  Indian  aflaiis,  the 
problem  ol  the  rupee  was  the  livcst  issue  in  the  field  of  money  in 
those  days,  and  Kevnes  was  to  make  his  dclwit  as  an  economist 
by  his  treatment  of  that  subject  His  brief  spell  at  the  India  Office 
had  a consequent c which  was  more  impoitant  than  either  of 
these  He  had  made  his  abilities  known  to  the  officials  of  the 
Office  lhat  knowledge  was  a necessary  link  in  the  chain  ol 
events  which  brought  Kevnes  into  prominence  m public  affairs 
faiily  early  m life  He  might  well  have  achieved  piommencc  in 
other  ways,  but  his  path  would  necessarily  have  been  more  devious 
At  about  this  time  there  occurred  an  event  which  was  to 
have  an  important  influence  for  many  years  111  his  private 
life  It  may  be  defined  as  follows  for  some  years  before  this,  his 
reply  to  the  question,  “ ^\ho  is  your  greatest  friend  ^ ” would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  “ Lytlon  Stracliey  ’ . Fiom  about  this  period 
until  his  death,  the  reply  would  have  been  “ Duncan  Grant” 
It  was  not  a question  of  the  one  supplanting  the  othei,  foi  the 
1 elation  to  each  was  different.  There  was  no  break  in  his  friend- 
ship with  Strachey,  and  their  coircspondence  continued  for  a 
number  of  years  There  is  a subtle  question  involved  concern- 
ing the  kind  of  fiicndship  which  satisfies  one’s  innermost  needs 
at  various  phases.  In  Strachey  he  had  found  a kindred  spirit 
of  rebellion  against  Victonan  conventions;  he  had  been  able  to 
learn  from  a sonicwhat  older  man;  he  had  been  fascinated  by 


AET.  25] 


IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  131 

his  genius ; he  had  been  succoured  by  his  power  of  sympathetic 
understanding.  They  both  had  dominating  personalities  ; they 
both  had  in  some  sense  a mission.  Is  it  putting  it  too  simply  to 
say  that  Keynes’  mission  was  to  make  men  think  differently  on 
important  matters,  Strachey's  to  make  them  feel  differently? 
Strachey  continued  to  be  poor,  havijig  to  eke  out  his  livelihood 
by  journalistic  work;  he  only  gained  a good  looting  on  the 
publication  of  Eminent  Victorians  (1918),  at  the  age  of  thirty-eight. 
But  all  this  time  he  was,  within  a circle  of  intellectual  friends, 
establishing  a kind  of  dominance.  He  was  struggling  to  find 
self-expression,  he  was  asserting  himself,  he  was  diffusing  his 
influence. 

Thus  there  was  the  possibilit)  of  an  uneasy  relation.  Eager 
as  Keynes  had  been  to  learn  what  Strachey  had  to  offer,  apprecia- 
tive as  he  always  was,  it  was  clearly  impossible  lor  him  to  be  one 
of  a group  of  followers.  He  had  his  own  far-reaching  and  com- 
manding powers.  Yet  within  this  ciicle,  to  w^hich  Keynes  freely 
chosoto  attach  himself  and  with  which  some  inner  urge  compelled 
him  to  maintain  his  intimacy,  it  was  Strachey  who  had  to  be  the 
leader  by  reason  of  the  principal  interests  of  the  group.  They 
were  not  mainly  concerned  wtih  economics  or  logic  or  public 
affairs  or  university  matters,  but  with  art  and  literature.  It  was 
Keynes’  great  intimacy  with  Duncan  Grant  that  gave  him  his 
special  and  congenial  position  in  the  circle,  neither  as  lead(*r  nor 
follower. 

Duncan  Grant  combined  a delightful  and  winning  persoiialit) 
with  a very  good  intellect.  In  the  correspondence  between  Keynes 
and  Strachey  there  were  recurrent  references  to  Duncan’s  fine 
intelligence.  By  comparison  with  Strachey  he  was  range.  He 
had,  of  course,  his  periods  of  depression  and  he  had  a struggle  to 
achieve  his  full  potentiality  in  his  painting,  but  that  form  of  self- 
expression  was  less  competitive  in  a social  group  than  Strachey’s, 
who  felt  an.  inner  compulsion  to  gain  acceptance  for  his  points 
of  view.  Grant  was  less  restless  and  volatile.  Not  that  he  was 
merely  a passive  figure ; he  was  strongly  original,  and  had  abound- 
ing interests  and  an  eager  flow  of  spirit.  Keynes  found  him  an 
ideal  companion. 

After  leaving  the  India  Office  he  immediately  went  up  to 
Cambridge,  at  which  the  Long  Vacation  period  of  residence  was 
proceeding.  We  hear  at  once  of  new  figures  — Geruld  Shove  ' 

* The  well-known  economist. 


132  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908 

and  Hugh  (“  Daddy  ”)  Dalton.*  Shove  was  destined  to  be  on 
intimate  terms  with  the  Keynes-Strachey  circle  for  many  years ; 
Dalton  diverged  on  to  a somewhat  different  path  at  an  earlier 
date.  Later  in  the  year,  when  Keynes  finally  settled  down  at 
King’s,  we  hear  also  of  Francis  (“  Frankie  ”)  Birrell  and  George 
Mallory.  The  former  of  these  remained  an  intimate  until  his 
death ; the  latter  was  a special  friend  of  Geoffrey  Keynes.  Rupert 
Brooke  was  already  an  established  figure  in  Cambridge. 

Keynes  got  quickly  to  work  upon  Probability.  He  had  had 
the  benefit  of  comments  and  suggestions  by  W.  E.  Johnson. 
Whitehead  also  sent  him  an  exposition  of  the  points  in  which 
he  was  in  incomplete  sympathy.  During  the  summer  there  was  a 
joint  discussion  on  Probability  with  Russell  and  Moore. 

Early  in  August  Keynes  took  Margaret,  his  sister,  over  to  visit 
Mrs.  Berenson,  then  staying  at  Court  Place,  Iffley,  near  Oxford, 
where  the  company  was  gay  and  living  very  comfortable.  ““In 
a few  minutes  we  are  going  in  the  launch  to  Christ  Church  to  see 
the  pictures  in  the  Library  there.”  ^ What  a delightful  way  of 
“ doing  ” Oxford  ! But  the  high  point  of  the  year  was  a stay  for 
some  two  months  with  Duncan  Grant  in  thc^Orkneys,  Duncan 
being  busy  painting -- his  work  including  a portrait  of  May- 
nard — while  Maynard  was  busy  working  on  Probability,  The 
result  appears  to  Iiave  been  successful. 


J,  j\L  Keynes  to  D urn  an  (rrani,  ^th  Fehniaiy  k/oc) 

1 met  Whitehead  in  the  stieet  lo-day  and  he  stopped  me  to 
speak  about  the  Dissertation.  He  says  that  the  new  version  has 
now  convinced  and  converted  him  on  the  fundamental  point  on 
wdiich  he  formerly  disagreed  with  me.  His  conversion  was  due  to 
the  chapter  wdiich  I wrote  chiefly  in  the  field  af)ove  Stiomness,  and 
a reference  to  the  argument  biought  l)ack  to  me  quite  cleaily  the 
view  of  the  harbour.  He  thinks  1 had  better  publish  at  once  with  a 
few  minor  alterations,  without  waiting  to  get  the  argument  com- 
pletely filh'd  in  regarding  certain  points  which  I have  left  so  far  in 
an  unsatisfactory  condition. 

He  came  south  at  the  end  of  October.  He  was  invited  to 
give  advice  on  certain  points  in  the  next  annual  report  on  “ The 
Material  and  Moral  Progress  of  India  ”.  He  had  to  dismantle 

* Well  known  in  dyie  course  as  a leader  o ithe  Labour  Party : Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  1945  to  1947.  * Letter  to  Duncan  Grant,  8th  August  1908. 


AET.  25]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  133 

his  flat  in  London  and,  having  had  an  attack  of  influenza,  did  not 
settle  into  College  until  the  end  of  November.  He  retained  a pied- 
a-terre  in  London  by  sharing  with  Duncan  Grant  accommodation 
in  Belgrave  Road.  Meanwhile  he  was  finishing  off  his  disserta- 
tion. We  may  anticipate  by  saying  that  Johnson  and  Whitehead 
wrote  still  more  favourable  reports  upon  it  when  it  was  rc-sub- 
mitted ; Whitehead  explained  that  his  doubts  on  certain  points 
had  been  removed.  In  the  following  March,  Keynes  was  elected 
a Fellow  of  King’s,  which  he  remained  until  the  end  of  his  life. 


3 

Between  190G  and  1911  Keynes  was  devoting  all  his  spare 
time  to  the  theory  of  Probability ; indeed,  we  may  stale  the  matter 
more  emphatically  by  saying  that  the  main  sUcam  of  his  intel- 
lectual energy  was  flowing  into  this  work  ; his  other  aetKities  were 
comparatively  easy  foi  him,  and  he  could  take  them  in  his  stride. 
Aftephis  failure  to  be  elected  to  the  Fellowship  in  1908,  he  attacked 
the  problem  with  rencw'ed  zest  for  re-submission ; after  his 
election  he  read  widely  in  the  subject  and  gieally  enlarged  the 
book  for  publication.^  In  1912  other  work  supervened,  and  his 
treatise  had  to  be  left  on  one  side  until  1920,  when  he  polished 
it  up  before  its  appearance  in  1921.  Thus  it  was  his  main  work 
from  the  age  of  twenty-three  to  twenty-nine.-  In  the  ( ase  of  some 
men  of  outstanding  powers,  thcii  constitution  (jr  eiuironmcnt 
prevents  full  fruition  until  a later  date.  But  Kevne  developed 
early,  and  his  environment  was  not  such  as  to  inhibit  work  of  the 
best  quality.  Indeed  we  may  believe  that  his  intellectual  powers 
at  this  period  were  at  ihcir  height;  his  tieatise  must  be  regarded 
as  embodying  a substantial  proportion  of*  his  best  life-work.  It 
would  be  quite  wrong  to  think  of  it  as  ^x  jeu  d' esprit  thrown  off  by 
an  economist  to  show  that  he  had  some  philosophical  capacity 
also. 

The  task  he  set  himself  was  a gigantic  one.  It  was  nothing 
less  than  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  empirical  thinking,  whether 

* There  was  during  this  period  a review  of  J^lemnU  de  la  thiorie  de^  probabihtis^  by 
£inile  Boule,  in  the  Mathematical  Gazette,  March  1910:  and  of  Wahncheinlichkeit^- 
lechnung,  vol.  ii,  by  Emmanuel  Czuber,  ibid,  October  1911. 

* J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr.  Marshall,  13th  September  1910:  "I  have  been  spending  all 
this  Long  on  my  Probability  Treatise  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else,  and  am  glad 
to  say  that  the  end  seems  in  sight.  It  has  occupied  all  my  spare  time  for  the  last  4 
vears,  and  I shall  not  be  sorry  to  be  free  again  for  other  ihingj,”  But  more  n*rnainrd 
to  be  done. 


134  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  L1906-11 

resulting  in  the  widest  and  most  abstruse  generalisations  of  physics 
or  in  the  commonplace  knowledge  about  the  facts  of  our  everyday 
life.  Thus  Keynes  set  himself  to  examine  the  validity  of  the 
processes  by  which  we  obtain  all  the  constructive  knowledge  that 
we  have.  He  had  to  examine  the  principles  of  induction.  Since  no 
knowledge  acquired  by  inductive  icasoning  reaches  the  level  of  ab- 
solute ceitaiiity,  he  had  to  examine  the  theory  of  Probability.  He 
set  himself  to  weld  the  abstract  theory  of  Probability  to  the  theory 
of  induction  more  closely  than  earlier  writers  had  attempted, 
and  to  deduce  all  his  principles  from  a minimum  number  of 
self-evident  axioms,  in  the  manner  in  which  Whitehead  and  Russell 
had  deduced  the  whole  of  mathematics  from  a minimum  number 
of  definitions  and  logical  axioms.  While  there  had  been  many 
treatises  on  piobabihty  and  much  wiiting  about  induction,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  a parallel  for  a comprehensive  attack  of 
lliis  kind  since  the  days  of  Aristotle.  In  Mill’s  treatise  there  is 
little  serious  t*i(kling  of  the  theory  of  Probability. 

It  is  usually  maintained,  and  Keynes  himself  did  not  dissent, 
that  these  abstruse  speculations  about  the  validity  of  empirical 
knowledge  are  ol  mcrc'l)  academic  interest,  «nce  the  scientists 
will  proceed  with  their  good  woik  without  too  much  concern 
about  its  logical  foundations  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the 
position  is  now  (hanging.  I he  Quantum  Theory  has  lecentl) 
been  taking  a couisc  which  seems  to  run  counter  to  normal 
scientific  pi  ogress,  in  that  it  has  to  multiply  (rather  than  reduce) 
the  number  ol  lundaincntal  entities,  the  existence  of  which  has  to 
be  assumed.  And  there  are  the  puzzles  connected  with  indetcr- 
minaev.  It  may  well  be  that  befoie  we  reach  the  next  great 
simplifying  s\nlhcsis,  which  will  surely  come  in  time,  there  will 
he  some  confluence  between  oidinaiy  physical  thinking  and  the 
philosophical  tlic'ory  ol  the  i elation  lietwcen  items  ol  evidence 
and  the  facts  w^hich  they  arc  deemed  to  support.  Thus  these 
fundamental  logical  speculations  cannot  be  ruled  out  as  inevit- 
ably of  no  piactical  use.  It  must  be  emphasised  thit  Keynes’ 
work  is  concerned  with  the  foundations  cjf  Probability,  and  not 
with  the  working  mathematics  of  it.  Statistical  mechanics  pro- 
ceeds apace,  using  far  more  abstruse  mathematical  methods  than 
are  to  be  found  in  Keynes’  treatise.  That  book,  despite  its  ample 
display  of  mathematical  symbolism,  is  not  a contribution  to  the 
mathematical  theory  of  Probability.  It  is  concerned  with  the 
logical  substructure  of  that  theoiy. 


AET.  23-28]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  135 

What  were  the  qualities  displayed  in  the  Treatise  on  Probability  ? 
First  we  may  note  the  purely  logical  faculty,  the  power  of  distin- 
guishing the  finest  shades  of  dilTercme  between  arguments  of 
deceptive  similarity.  This  logical  faiulty  is  difl'erent  from  that 
of  the  pure  mathematician.  \Ve  have  seen  that  Keynes  did  not 
attain  the  highest  flight  of  mathematical  proficiency.  The  mathe- 
matician is  working  at  every  point  with  symbols  which  guide 
and  govern  him,  although  he  has  to  biTonic  thcii  master.  The 
logician  at  certain  points  has  to  dispense  witli  this  guidance  and 
depend  upon  intuition.  In  the  intuitive  perception  of  distim- 
tions  and  of  relevam  e,  Keynes  probably  ranks  witli  the  greatest 
logicians. 

Secondly,  he  displays  a special  kind  of  mathematical  ability 
which  is  distinct  from  this  logical  ability.  For  tin'  purpose  of 
deducing  the. ordinary  theorems  ol  the  matlu  nuidcs  of  Probability 
from  a few  general  logical  propositions,  a special  kind  of  mathe- 
matical apparatus  had  to  be  used.  Very  few  persons  at  that  time, 
perhaps  only  two  in  England,  were  adept  in  this  particular  form 
cjf  mathematics,  lioth  have  given  their  verdicts,  in  view  of  which 
we  are  able  to  give  Keynes  high  marks  for  his  jnofu  iency  in  this 
very  special  and  difficult  field.  In  his  re])ort  on  Keynes’  sub- 
mission on  the  first  occasion,  Whitehead  wrote  : 

Turning  now  to  the  mathematical  division  of  thr*  dissertation 
. . . His  symbolism  is  excellent ; it  lias  tlie  great  merit  that  accom- 
panies good  symbolism,  that  essential  points  w'hirh  without  it  are 
subtle  and  easil)  lost  sight  of,  w'iih  it  bc*coinc  simple  t'nd  obvious. 
Also  his  .ixioms  arc  good  ; they  are  simple  rind  few  and  the  aid  of 
the  symbolism  he  deduces  the  wdiolc  subject  from  them  by  rigid 
reasoning.  'Fhc  very  certainty  and  case  by  which  he  is  enabled  to 
solve  difficult  questions  and  to  delect  ambiguities  and  errors  in  the 
work  of  his  predecessors  exemplifies  and  at  the  same  time  almost 
conceals  the  advance  which  he  has  nuid(\ 

In  his  review  of  Keynes’  book  as  it  finally  appc.ircd,  Bertrand 
Russell  wrote : 

The  mathematical  calculus  is  astonishingly  powerful,  consider- 
ing the  very  restricted  premises  which  form  its  foundation.  . . . 
The  book  as  a whole  is  one  which  it  is  impossible  to  praise 
too  highly  and  it  is  to  he  hoped  that  it  wall  stimulate  further  work 
on  a most  important  subject  which  philosophers  and  logicians  have 
unduly  neglected.* 

* Mathematical  Gazette,  vol.  xi,  July  1924. 


136  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1906-11 

It  should  be  noticed,  however,  that  this  praise  wzus  relative  to  a 
first  attempt.  I believe  the  expert  view  now  to  be  that  the  mathe- 
matics are  by  no  means  impeccable. 

Thirdly,  there  was  his  immense  erudition  in  the  history  of 
thought.  It  may  well  be  that  Keynes  had  a wider  knowledge  of 
the  literature  of  probability  than  he  ever  acquired  in  his  chosen 
subject  of  economics.  Complaints  were  made  that  his  treatment 
of  it  was  somewhat  sporadic,  and  that  he  did  not  present  the 
reader  with  a clear  view  of  the  general  development  of  the  subject. 
He  might  well  have  replied  that  he  was  using  historical  sources  for 
their  relevance  to  the  central  problems  which  he  was  endeavouring 
to  solve.  To  have  given  an  outline  of  the  historical  development 
of  empirical  logic  would  have  required  a separate  volume. 

Finally,  we  come  to  a quality  which  is  more  important  than 
all  these  and  more  didicult  t(^  define.  It  is  to  emphasised 
that  his  subject-matter  was  a vast  one.  In  some  parts  of  the  field 
precise  and  rigid  mathematical  work  had  already  been  done ; 
others  had  only  !)ecn  treated  somewhat  vaguely;  all  had*. been 
treated  from  various  points  of  view  and  with  conflicting  conclu- 
sions. The  authorities  were  numerous,  and  j}ie  subject  no  less 
than  the  whole  of  human  knowledge  itsell,  save  for  that  part  of  it 
which  is  contained  in  purely  deductive  processes.  Keynes  dis- 
played the  most  astonishing  ease  in  moving  about  this  tremendous 
field.  He  had  a keen  eye  for  the  mutual  relevance  of  apparently 
widely  separated  problems.  Most  important  of  all,  he  showed  the 
quality  of  realism  in  a very  high  degree.  One  may  proceed  from 
certain  assumptions  and  develop  an  elegant  theory  of  probability ; 
Keynes  was  quick  to  reject  theories  which,  however  meritorious  in 
themselves,  did  not  apply  exactly  to  the  actual  processes  of  thought 
which  man  uses  in  his  scientific  or  general  reasoning.  The 
power  of  apprehending  simultaneously  in  his  mind  widely  dis- 
parate theories  and  facts,  the  fine  judgment  of  relevance  and 
intense  realism  — these  are  his  great  qualities.  To  them  we  must 
add  his  faculty  Tor  developing  a chain  t)f  rigid  logical  reasoning, 
once  he  had  assured  himself  that  he  had  achieved  relevant  pre- 
mises and  was  not  merely  spinning  fine  theories  in  the  void. 

It  will  at  once  occur  to  economists  that  these  were  the  same 
qualities  that  marked  his  theoretical  work  in  economics.  He  was 
second  to  none  in  his  logical  capacity  for  developing  a fine-spun 
theory ; but  he  was  entirely  averse  from  doing  so  save  when  he 
believed  his  premises  to  be  realistic  and  his  conclusions  applicable 


AET.  23-28]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  137 

to  life.  His  realism  was  unsurpassed  among  economists  of  his 
calibre.  He  had  an  extraordinary  capacity  for  going  below  the 
surface  of  things.  This  keen  sense  of  reality,  this  power  of  visualis- 
ing how  tendencies  do  in  fact  work  themselves  out  in  the  market- 
place, is  not  often  combined  with  first-class  theoretical  power. 

In  his  biography  of  Alfred  Marshall,  Keynes  emphasised  the 
point  that  Marshall  understood  that  the  task  oi'  the  economic 
theorist  was  something  more  extensive  and  more  difficult  than 
the  development  of  a mathematical  terliniquc.  He  inserted  the 
following  footnote ; 

Professor  Planck  of  Berlin,  the  fiinous  originator  of  the  Qiianluin 
Theory,  once  remarked  to  me  that  in  early  life  he  had  thought  of 
studying  economics,  but  had  found  it  too  difficult ! Professor  Planck 
could  easily  master  the  whole  corpus  of  mathematical  economics 
in  a ft'w  days.  He  did  not  mean  that  I But  th<‘  amalgam  of  logic 
and  intuition  and  the  wide  knowledge  of  facts,  most  of  which  are 
not  precise,  which  is  required  for  economic  interpretation  in  its 
highest  form,  is,  quite  truly,  overwhelmingly  difhcult  foi  those  whose 
gift  mainly  consists  in  the  power  to  imagine  and  pursue  to  their 
furthermost  points,  the  implications  and  prior  londitions  of  com- 
paratively simple  facts,  which  are  known  with  a high  degne  of 
precision.^ 

I happened  to  sit  next  to  Keynes  at  the  High  Table  of  King's 
College  a day  or  tw^o  after  Planck  had  made  this  (ibservalion, 
and  Keynes  told  me  of  it.-  Lowes  Dickinson  was  sitting  opposite. 
“That's  funny,”  he  said,  “ because  Bertrand  Russell  once  told 
me  that  in  early  life  he  had  thought  of  studying  economics,  but 
had  found  it  too  ciisy ! ” Keynes  did  not  reply.  It  wiis  unlikely 
that  RusselTs  remark  was  to  be  taken  with  the  seriousness  that 
Lowes  Dickinson  seemed  naively  disposed  to  attribute  to  it. 

The  Treatise  on  Piohahility  did  not  appear  until  1921.  Bert- 
rand Russell’s  review  was  full  of  high  praise.^  There  was  a favour- 
able notice 'by  Mr.  Harold  Jcfl'rcys,^  who  with  Dr.  Dorothy 
Wrinch  had  already  begun  to  work  on  similar  lines,  and  who  has 
since  become  the  greatest  expert  on  the  subject.  There  were 
other  good  reviews,  not  all  of  which  showed  understanding  of  the 

* Economic  Journal,  19^4)  rerprinted  in  Alemoriah  of  Alfred  AiarshalL  p.  25. 

* He  had  just  returned  from  Berlin,  where  he  had  been  advising  on  the  depreciation 
of  the  mark  in  November  1922. 

* Op,  cit.  For  some  points  raised  in  the  review,  w the  note  whirh  is  appended  to 

this  volume.  *♦  Nature^  2nd  February  igJ2. 


138  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

purport  of  the  work.  There  were  some  unfavourable  reviews. 
Certain  persons  of  actuarial  training  showed  irritation,  not  realis- 
ing that  they  themselves  had  not  the  faintest  idea  what  the  philo- 
sophical problems  were  that  Keynes  was  trying  to  solve.  A full 
and  favourable  appreciation  was  given  in  Mind  by  Professor  C.  D. 
Broad,  who  had  been  through  some  of  the  proofs  with  the  author 
and  Russell  in  1914.  A year  later,  however,  there  appeared  in 
Mind  an  article  on  the  Treatise  by  H.  W.  B.  Joseph,  a philosopher 
of  considerable  reputation  in  his  own  University  of  Oxford.  It 
can  hardly  be  claimed  that  he  had  really  tried  to  comprehend 
the  central  features  of‘  Keynes’  thought.  He  and  those  who 
agreed  with  him  at  Oxford  were  extremely  hostile  to  the  ideas 
of  Russell  and  Whitehead.  Joseph  was  alienated  by  their  manifest 
influence  upon  Keynes,  and  used  his  space  rather  for  general 
skirmishing  with  the  Russellian  presuppositions  of,  the  book  - 
there  is  a contemptuous  reference  to  Russell’s  “ lingo  ” — than 
for  close  grappling  with  Keynes’  original  contributions.  The 
review  was  hostile,  and  at  one  point  Joseph  wrote  that  “ Mr. 
Keynes  is  no  safe  guide  in  fundamental  logical  problems 

Keynes  was  staying  with  me  in  Christ  Chui^h  some  time  after 
that,  and  I thought  that  it  would  be  suitable  to  bring  these 
eminent  persons  together.  Accordingly  I invited  Joseph  to  break- 
fast — breakfast  was  still  often  made  a social  occasion  at  Oxford 
in  those  days.  When  I told  Keynes  that  Joseph  was  coming  to 
breakfast,  I detected  a look  of  pain  on  his  face.  But  I was  not 
alarmed,  because  I thought  that  1 had  provided  adequately  for 
his  comfort  by  arranging  that  the  breakfast  should  be  at  9.30  a.m. 
‘‘  Breakfast  is  at  9.30,”  I said.  But  his  pain  was  not  much  assuaged. 
“ It  is  a very  long  time  since  I have  got  up  as  early  as  that,”  he 
said,  “ but  if  Joseph  is  coming  ...” 

Throughout  his  mature  life,  and  long  before  his  serious  illness 
in  1937,  he  made  it  a habit  of  lying  late  in  bed,  to  conserve  his 
energies.  His  morning  post  was  brought  to  him  and  . considered  ; 
the  financial  intelligence  which  he  received  was  carefully  scrutin- 
ised ; the  decisions  of  the  day  were  taken ; letters  were  dictated  : 
in  fact  most  of  what  might  be  called  his  office  work  was  conducted 
before  he  rose  from  bed.  Thus,  when  he  did  finally  get  up,  he  had 

* On  the  appearance  of  Joseph’s  Introduction  to  Logic  (1907)  Dr.  Keynes  had  written 
to  his  son  : “ I began  reading  Joseph’s  Logic.  I thought  that  in  the  first  chapter  he  put 
some  points  well : but  in  the  other  chapters  I have  read  it  seems  to  me  confusion  of 
thought  almost  from  beginning  to  end.  A good  deal  of  it  is  not  even  worth  serious 
criticism.  I agree  witlfyour  pencilled  comments.” 


AET  40] 


IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  139 

a clear  day  before  him  for  seeing;  those  whom  he  had  to  see,  for 
his  solid  work  of  writing,  or  for  meeting  his  friends  ^ 

Mr.  Duncan  Grant  recalls  how,  when  he  was  sharing  an  apart- 
ment in  London  with  Keynes,  the  telephone  bell  rang.  He  had  a 
receiver  by  his  bedside.  It  was  still  dark.  He  turned  on  the 
light  and  looked  at  his  '\\aUh.  It  was  7 a.m.  He  took  up  the 
receiver. 

Vo?ce:  This  is  Margot  Asquith.  1 want  to  speak  to  Mr. 

Maynard  Keynes.’' 

Duncan  (hant:  I’m  soiry  ; Maynard  is  still  in  bed  ; T do  not 
think  that  1 (an  disturb  him.” 

Marmot  Asquith'  W(dl,  tell  Mavnard  Keyics  lioni  me  that 
if  he  does  not  get  up  earlier  than  thK  he  will  nc\ei  get  on 
in  the  wen  Id.” 

On  the  (jccasion  of  the  Oxford  brcaklaa  Kevne<*  played  his 
par  t and  appeared  puiu  tually . A minute  later  Joseph  ( aine  bust- 
ling into  the  room.  “■  I have  berm  taking  two  pujrib,”  he  said; 
‘‘  I put  on  ni)  lime  o'clock  pupils  at  8 m older  to  breakfast 
hcic.” 

But  I had  not  the  heart  to  raise  the  issue  of  Prob<ibility  at  the 
breakfast  tabic.  Ihc  tomcisation  e\entually  turned  towaids  the 
Social  Credit  theoric^s  of  Major  Douglas.  Joseph  gave  an  elaboi- 
atc  refutation.  He,  like  Mooie,  had  de\ eloped  a style  wdiich 
purported  to  cany  oidinary  piose  to  the  extieme  limit  of  clarity 
and  precision  of  expression.  But  thene  was  a diflerence  Moore's 
style,  for  all  its  straining  after  j)i excision,  leiains  a certain  flexibility 
and  vitalils,  adapting  itself  to  weak  human  nature,  so  that  one 
can  follow  all  the  (irificult  twists  and  turns  as  thc‘y  pioce<‘d. 
Joseph’s  sl\le  was  more  medianical,  and  lc‘ss  thoughtful  of  his 
auditor.  He  had  certainly,  by  long  habit,  acquired  a facilits  foi 
stating  with  a high  degicc  of  accuiacs  precisely  wliat  he  meant 
to  say.  None  the  less,  it  was  extremely  diflicult  for  the'  listener 
to  apprehend  what  he  meant.  The  sentences  were  often  long 
and  contained  many  subordinate  clauses.  They  succeeded  each 
other  quickly.  It  was  an  astonishing  tow  dejorce.  Polysyllables 
were  avoided,  and  the  sentences  always  seemed  to  end  gram- 
matically, as  they  should.  One  had  the  sense  that,  if  only  one 
could  have  each  sentence  before  one  and  study  it  c*iicfully  lor  a 

* 1 or  an  alteinatne  way  in  which  another  ejicat  man,  albeit  of  fa*  robusUr  ron- 
stitution,  coiiser\td  his  eiiertjKS,  see  7/f  (jtiihenng  Storm,  b\  Mi  Win  ton  Chun  hill, 
P 329. 


140  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

long  time,  one  would  be  able  to  apprehend  its  meaning,  and 
that  its  meaning  would  be  clear.  But  as  his  speech  went  rapidly 
forward,  each  sentence  faded  out  into  oblivion,  and  one  realised 
that  one  would  never  grasp  the  thoughts  that  had  been  set  befoie 
one.  I do  not  know  whether  Keynes’  abnormal  powers  of  quick 
apprehension  rose  to  this  forbidding  ordeal.  At  the  end  of  Joseph’s 
lengthy  and  elaborate  refutation,  Keynes  summoned  up  his  most 
gracious  manner  and  leaning  forward  said : “ That  is  the  most 
clear  and  admirable  exposure  of  Majoi  Douglas’s  fallacies  that  I 
have  ever  heard.” 

Some  time  after  that  I met  Alfred  Whitehead.  Keynes  had 
been  to  him  lor  advice.  He  had  been  hotly  indignant  at  Joseph’s 
article,  and  eager  to  rend  him.  Whitehead  had  strongly  dissuaded 
him,  on  the  ground  that  the  article  was  so  ii relevant  as  to  be  un- 
worthy of  his  attention.  No  lejoindei  was  in  lac  t wiitten.  White- 
head added  that  he  had  also  had  in  mind  that  Joseph  was  “ leally 
a silly  man  ”,  and  he  recalled  an  incident  which  I knew  already 
When  1 was  an  undcrgiaduate  and  secietai\  of  a philosofihical 
society,*  I persuaded  Whitehead,  whom  I had  known  since  boy- 
hood, to  (ome  up  and  lead  a papei  to  it.  He  consented  with 
some  reluctance,  on  the  ground  that  the  mocking  atmosphere 
of  Oxfoid  distill  bed  those  ‘'pieties”  which  he  cherished.  His 
paper  gave  lisc  to  a discussion  of  “ relations  ”.  A i elation  was  one 
of  those  indefinables  of  which,  accoiding  to  Joseph,  one  had  a 
direct  undci standing,  and  that  understanding  vouchsafed  the 
information  that  a lelation  had  two  terms  and  two  tcims  only. 
Whitehead  insisted  that  a relation  might  have  moie  than  two 
terms.  He  citc*d  the  instance  of  the  apices  of  a triangle.  One 
could  not  specify  the  relation  between  two  of  the  apices  without 
also  referring  to  the  third  apex,  which  thus  constituted  an  essential 
ingredient  in  the  relation.  Joseph  was  obdurate.  “ It  was  of  the 
nature  of  a relation  to  have  two  terms  only.”  But  why  ? “ If  one 
understood  what  a relation  was,  one  knew  that  it  could  only  have 
two  terms.”  Whitehead  was  disgusted.  This  was  merely  a “ silly 
man  ”.  Keynes  was  spared  much  trouble,  for  Joseph  would 
undoubtedly  have  made  a rejoinder,  and,  for  all  his  failings,  had 
formidable  powers  as  a controversialist.  Thus  Joseph’s  obstinacy 
in  regard  to  the  two  terms  of  a relation  released  a considerable 
portion  of  Keynes’  energies  at  his  maturity  for  the  benefit  of 
economics 


* T.  he  Jowett  Societ> 


AET.40]  IN  QUEST  OF  A WAY  OF  LIFE  141 

The  only  criticism  which  disturbed  Keynes  at  this  time  came 
from  another  quarter.  There  was  an  undergraduate  at  Trinity, 
Cambridge,  who  had  recently  arrived  from  Winchester,  the  son, 
like  Keynes,  of  a Cambridge  don.'  This  was  Frank  Ramsey.^ 
Keynes  quickly  spotted  him  as  a young  man  of  outstanding  genius. 
Although  he  was  still  an  undergraduate  when  the  Treatise  appeared, 
his  criticism  carried  more  weight  with  Keynes  tlian  any  other, 
and  it  is  not  clear  that  Keynes  felt  that  he  had  a satisfactory 
answer  to  it.^ 

After  the  publication  of  the  Treatise^  Keynes  did  not  make 
further  contributions  to  logic.  Wc  may  suppose  that  his  Interest 
continued.  He  proceeded  to  add  the  great  classics  of  the  subject 
to  his  library,  and  he  read  more  of  what  be  bought  than  most 
bibliophiles.  I recall  an  incident  towards  the  close  of  his  life. 
I was  a member  with  him  of  an  intcr-depaitinental  committee 
on  economic  problems  during  World  War  II,  and  had  circulated 
a lengthy  memorandum  for  the  business  of  the  day.  He  came 
into  the  room  after  I was  seated,  and  touched  me  on  the  shoulder 
as  he  passed  my  chair:  I am  afraid  that  I have  not  had  time 
to  read  your  memorandum,  but  T have  been  reading  your  paper 
on  Memory."  ’ 

(A  further  account  of  the  contents  of  the  I'reatise  is  given  in  the 
Appendix  to  this  volume.) 

‘ A.  S,  Ramsey,  mathematician  and  tellow  ‘>1  Magdalene  Coliej^e. 

^ See  Chapter  VITI  (4)  below. 

See  Appendix  to  this  volume. 

This  had  rereritlv  appeared  in  January  i94i». 


C H A P I L R IV 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 

1 

IN  1908  economics  at  Canibiidgc  had  foi  lone;  b(cn  doininattd, 
and  was  for  lone;  to  continue  to  lie  dominated  bv  the  peison- 
ahty  of  Alfred  Mai  shall  Keynes  has  himscll  supplied  us  with 
a brilliant  ac  ( ount  of  his  ch  iractcr,  work  and  influence.^  Mai  shall 
had  qualities  which  fitted  him  foi  scientific  leadership.  Ills 
reading  in  his  subject  was  very  i>reat,  and  the  standaid  which 
he  insisted  upon  foi  his  own  publications  \crv  hn^h  His  eveiy 
sentence  was  carefully  weighed  and  polished  He  had  at  sense 
of  responsibility  and  a consciousness  of  his  own  eminence,  which 
made  him  i(ive  thoroiuj;h  Jud^ment  be  foie  proqpuiicing,  as  though 
he  were  indeed  a wise  mcmauh  issuing  decrees  to  his  subiects 
He  was  a fine  thconst,  and  in  his  younget  davs  spent  much  time 
in  elaborating  a mathematical  fiamcwork,  but,  as  wc  ha\c  seen, 
he  did  not  confuse  economic  excellence  with  proficiencs  in  mani- 
pulating symliols,  and  did  full  justice  to  the  need  fen  the  studv  of 
institutions  and  to  the  difliculty  of  obtaining  an  imdci  standing 
ol  then  inner  modes  of  opeiation  Hence  his  «idmnation  foi 
Keynes'  eaily  work  in  the  field  of  mone\  Without  sacrificing 
one  scintilla  ol  the  lequncment  for  truthful  and  impartial  studv, 
he  was  something  of  a diplomat  in  icgaid  to  the  presentation  of 
his  work  He  was  anxious  to  make  it  acceptable  to  \armus  types 
of  leader,  business-men,  labour  leaders,  etc  , and,  with  this  in  view, 
at  times  tended  to  conceal  the  abstruse  mathernatics.bv  which  he 
achic\ed  some  of  his  results  For  the  general  leader  he  made 
economies  seem  somewhat  easier  than  it  really  was,  although  the 
students  at  Cambridge  were  made  aware  of  the  vanous  pitfalls 
I urthermore,  he  was  extremely  anxious  to  maintain  the  unity  ol 
the  subject,  both  in  time  and  place.  He  knew  that  economic 

’ Obituary  notice  m the  Fconomic  Journal  September  1924,  reprinted  m Metrmiah 
oj  Alfred  Marshall  edited  by  A C Piejou,  publ  Macmillan,  1925  and  in  Essays  in 
Biography y b>  J M KAms,  1933 


142 


AET  25] 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 


H3 

controversies  exposed  it  to  the  contempt  of  the  ordinary  man. 
He  sought  to  find  some  good  in  vaiious  schools  of  thought  and  to 
preserve  historical  continuity,  su(  h as  exists  in  the  more  developed 
sciences.  In  Cambiidge,  his  leadership  was  pai amount;  on  the 
whole  his  pre-eminence  was  recognised  in  Britain  generally;  and 
his  reputation  was  world-wide.  At  Oxford,  Profcssoi  F.  Y.  Edge- 
worth,  an  original  economist  of  notable  achievements,  was  his 
unqualified  admirer. 

While  his  work  in  pulling  the  subjee  t together  .ind  establishing 
an  authoritative  text  (his  Pnmiples)  was  of  eicat  \aluc,  his  pre- 
dominant position  had  disadvantages.  In  due  com s(‘  tliei  e bee ame 
disccrnilile  some  spirit  of  rebellion  in  l-.oiidon,  01,  one  mighl 
say,  of  competition  against  his  monopolv  ; tliis  tradition  mav  have 
accentuated  contiovcrsv  between  Ckimbiidge  and  London  at  a 
later  date. 

Marshall  thought  that  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
subject  weie  now  fixed  bevond  dispute,  and  that  the  next  genera- 
tion Af  economists  would  be  Iut  to  concern  themsedves  mainly, 
with  the  ajiplication  of  these  principles  to  all  the  bewildeiing 
variety  ol  institutions  and  piactices  in  the  leal  woild.  Oi^  the 
whole,  the  Cambiidgc  school,  including  Keynes,  cairicd  out  this 
programme,  Keynes  devoting  himself  particularly  to  cmrenc  v and 
banking  questions.  There  wcie  disad\ antagc's  in  the  Marshallian 
programme.  The  hold  of  a scientific  svstem  which  consisted 
essentially  of  definitions  and  classifications,  and  contained  no 
ejuantitatise  laws,  was  piecaiious.  Such  a system  ought  to  be 
subjected  to  consUint  challenge,  in  the  quest  for  still  better  classi- 
fications. There  was  something  unnatuial  in  the  state  of  calm 
imposed  by  Marshall.  The  established  »ystcm  began  to  acciuiic 
an  odour  of  sanctity,  which  was  unhealthy.  When  Keynes,  a 
quaitcr  of  a century  later,  proposed  a reclassification  in  part  of 
the  field,  he  met  with  much  opposition,  not  all  ol  which  was 
purely  rational. 

At  the  point  of  time  with  which  we  are  conccincd,  Marshall 
had  just  been  succeeded  by  Pigou.  He  withdrew  from  active 
participation  in  educational  work  at  Cambridge ; but  his  Pfinciples 
and  his  monetary  theories,  cmliodicd  in  evidence  before  successive 
Royal  Commissions  and  in  the  lecture-notes  of  Cambridge  pupils, 
continued  to  govern  the  thought  of  the  place.  Pigou  was  his 
disciple  and  favourite  pupil.  He  was  a man  of  wide  interests, 
and  had  partaken  in  the  keen  discussions  of  the  Dickinsoriian 


144  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908 

circle  about  life  and  art  and  social  welfare ; he  has  to  his  credit 
publications  on  theism  and  on  Browning.  He  had  also  been 
President  of  the  Cambridge  Union,  where  his  speeches  on  the 
fiscal  controversy  were  long  remembered.  There  was  more  fire 
and  passion  in  his  oratory  at  this  time  than  in  that  of  Keynes, 
who  tended  to  limit  himself  to  the  strict  argument. 

Pigou  made  a notable  impression  as  professor.  Tall,  athletic, 
lucid  and  unadorned  in  his  lecture  manner,  yet  going  very  effect- 
ively to  the  heart  of  the  subject,  he  created  great  confidence. 
What  appealed  above  all  were  his  simplicity  and  utter  lack  of 
affectation  or  of  pomposity.  He  was  friendly  and  talked  with  the 
young  on  terms  of  equality.  He  usually  had  some  very  close 
friends  among  the  choice  spirits,  who  would  be  taken  with  him 
during  the  vacations  to  share  in  the  ardours  of  mountain  climbing. 
In  later  years  he  gained  the  reputation  among  economists  of  being 
somewhat  inaccessible.  He  was  always  ready  to  deal  with  specific 
difficulties,  but  did  not  much  care  for  general  economic  discussion, 
still  less  for  interviews  with  those  who  only  came  to  hint  in  a 
sight-seeing  spirit.  I remember  a letter  from  a Japanese  student, 
whom  I had  permitted  to  attend  my  Icctui^s.  He  had  visited 
Cambridge  with  imperfect  success.  Pigou  he  had  found  away ; 
the  gate-keeper  of  Marshall's  graveyard  was  also  away,  so  that  he 
could  not  obtain  access  to  the  grave;  but  he  had  been  lucky 
enough  to  have  an  hour’s  conversation  with  Mr.  D.  H.  Robertson. 
He  was  now  on  his  way  to  Scotland,  where  he  hoped  to  have 
better  luck  with  Adam  Smith  than  he  had  had  with  Marshall  or 
Pigou.  Pigou,  had  he  been  in  Cambridge,  would  not  have  wel- 
comed a visit  of  this  character. 

The  first  examination  for  the  Economic  Tripos  (Part  I)  in 
Cambridge  was  in  1905;  and  the  first  Part  II  examination  was 
in  1906.  Numbers  were  small.  Candidates  for  the  two  together 
rose  from  six  in  iqo6  to  twenty-five  in  1910.  W.  E.  Johnson 
lectured  on  advanced  theory,  Lowes  Dickinson  on  political  science, 
J.  H.  Clapham  on  the  economic  history  of  France  and  Germany, 
C.  R.  Fay  on  British  economic  history  and  general  economics; 
H.  O.  Meredith  was  brought  back  to  Cambridge,  being  given  the 
Girdler’s  Lectureship  in  succession  to  Pigou,  which  he  retained  until 
he  became  professor  at  the  Queen’s  University,  Belfast,  in  1911 ; 
Alston  was  then  lecturing  for  those  wffio  took  economics  in  the 
ordinary  B.A.  degree.  A strong  team,  but  a small  one ! To  these 
were  now  added  Walter  Layton  and  Keynes.  Layton  lectured 


AET.  25] 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 


145 

on  the  structure  and  problems  of  industry  and  on  labour  problems. 
His  lectures  were  long  remembered  for  their  admirable  grasp  of 
actualities.  In  the  Lent  and  Summer  Terms  of  1909  Keynes 
lectured  on  Money,  Credit  and  Prices,  three  limes  a week.  He 
at  once  made  a great  impression.  He  was  evidently  a theorist ; 
he  expounded  Marshallian  monetary  doctrine,  which  still  had 
not  much  publicity  outside  the  Cambridge  classiooms.  He  was 
evidently  also  a realist.  He  abounded  in  the  jargon  of  the  market- 
place — arbitrage,  backwardation,  etc.,  but  his  explanations 
were  in  every  case  impeccably  lucid.  Theory  was  reinforced 
with  massive  illustrations.  I’he  (lucstion  of  gold  production 
seemed  then  to  be  of  the  first  importance,  and  most  recondite 
information  was  brought  forward  on  this  topic.  Even  in  his 
lectures  on  Principles,  whic  h he  gave  somewdiat  later,  there  was 
more  factual  illustration  than  is  iisutd  in  such  courses.  Il(‘  antici- 
pated Schultz,  although  no  doubt  without  his  laborious  research, 
by  providing  his  class  with  the  actual  elasticity  of  the  demand  for 
sugar*  he  illustrated  the  theory  of  profit  by  detailed  statistics 
from  the  cottem  industry;  copious  figures  were  given  on  the 
export  of  capital.  The  lectures  were  animated  and  intriguing 
in  their  mode  of  delivery.  He  succeeded  in  conveying  to  his 
hearers  that  the  theories  he  expounded  really  did  apply  to  w^hat 
was  happening  in  the  country.  He  seemed  to  be  in  close  touch 
— although  his  contacts  at  this  date  were  still  slender  - with 
business  affairs.  The  outside  world  w^as  brought  vividly  before 
the  minds  of  the  Clambiidgc  class  — and  yet  he  was  not  merely 
a practical  man;  he  was  essentially  a theorist  manipulating 
Marshall’s  formulae  on  the  blackboard. 

All  this  was  very  exciting.  Pigou,  La>ton,  Keynes,  supported 
on  the  peripheral  subjects  by  the  other  distinguished  men  I have 
mentioned,  certainly  did  succeed  with  their  widely  different  styles 
of  lecturing,  in  proclucing  from  this  small  class  a notable  group  of 
economists  who  have  become  illustrious.  The  First  Class  lists  in 
the  Triposes  in  these  years  before  1914  included  the  names  of 
D.  H.  Robertson,  H.  D.  Henderson,  G.  Shove,  F.  Laviiigtoii, 
C.  W.  Guillebaud,  P.  Sargant-Florence,  and  — outside  the  ranks 
of  professional  economists  — P.  Noel  Baker.*  Among  those  ap- 
pearing in  the  first  division  of  the  Second  Class  was  Hugh  Dalton. 

* Professor  of  International  Relations  in  the  University  of  l.ondoii  fiom  1924  to 
I gag,  Labour  M.P.  from  1929,  Parliamentary  Secretary  to 'the  Ministry  of  War 
IVansport,  1942-5,  and  Cabinet  Minister,  1945-50. 

L 


146  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908 

Keynes  was  a very  busy  lecturer  throughout  this  period. 
During  the  last  three  years  before  1914  he  gave  a course  in  every 
term  twice  a week  on  Principles.  Pigou  may  have  wished  to  give 
his  young  colleague  a chance  in  this  subject,  or  himself  have 
become  weary  of  repeating  the  same  course  year  after  year.  We 
may  give  as  an  example  of  Keynes’  activity  his  schedules  in  the 
two  years  1911  to  1912  and  1913  to  1914;  these  were  the  busiest 
years,  but  the  others  little  less  so.  In  the  Michaelmas  Term  he 
lectured  twice  a week  on  Principles ; in  the  Lent  Term  he  lec- 
tured twice  a week  on  Principles,  twice  a week  on  the  Theory 
of  Money  and  once  a week  on  Company  Finance  and  the  Stock 
Exchange ; in  the  Easter  (Summer)  Term,  he  Icc  tured  twice  a week 
on  Principles,  twice  a week  on  Currency  and  Banking  and  once  a 
week  on  the  Money  Market  and  the  Foreign  Exchanges.  Earlier 
in  19 1 1 he  gave  a course  once  a week  on  the  currency  and  finance 
of  India. 

In  this  prc-wai  period  he  certainly  went  through  the  mill  of 
hard  univoisiiy  teaching. 

2 

By  the  end  of  Novcmbei  1908  he  had  settled  into  his  rooms 
ill  King's.  He  spent  the  first  three  weeks  of  December  writing 
a paper  on  “ Recent  Economic  Events  in  India  ” for  the  Economic 
Journal.^  This  was  a short  time  for  the  preparation  of  his  first 
important  appearance  in  print,  but  he  was  no  doubt  fortified  by 
knowledge  acquired  at  the  India  Office.  The  papei  deals  w'ith 
the  disturbances  of  1907-8  and  their  relation  (o  the  management 
of  the  rupee,  llie  reasoning  was  solid  and  the  statistics  used  with 
caution.  I do  not  think  that  there  is  anything  in  the  paper  of 
which  he  would  have  been  ashamed  thirty  years  later,  although 
the  technique  of  analysis  is  naturally  different.  Emphasis  is 
placed  on  the  inflationary  effect  of  the  inflow  of  foreign  capital 
into  India  acting  through  the  mechanism  of  the  rup’cc  issue.  He 
legal ded  the  currency  system  not  as  something  that  should  be  as 
automatic  as  possible,  but  as  capable  of  being  deliberately  man- 
aged to  obtain  a desired  result.  “ The  Indian  Government  have 
not  yet  hit  on  an  ideal  system,  and  they  should  not  rest  content 
with  the  know'ledge  that  many  of  their  newspapers  critics  arc  wide 
of  the  mark.”  In  the  spring  of  1909  he  had  a series  of  letters  in 
the  Economist  ol'  a statistical  character,  arguing  that  estimates  of 

* March  1909. 


Air  25J  lELLOW  OF  KING’S  147 

British  investments  in  India  were  exagsferatcd,  and  that  they  were 
neaier  million  than  the  £^00  million  alleged  ' He  also 

had  a letter  in  the  Economist  urging  that  even  moderate  tanfi 
leform  would  involve  a great  loss  to  Biitain  in  leceipts  fiom 
invisible  exports  ^ 

The  soeial  hie  of  Cambiidge  proceeded 


7 M Keanes  to  Duncan  Giant,  igth  Januaf)  n^o ) 

1 dcliveifd  my  lecture  [his  lust  Icelim  | this  moining  bcfoic 
an  enormous  and  cosmopolitan  audit  nrc  the  it  must  hav<  been  <it 
hast  filtcen,  1 think,  but  a good  man\  of  them  u illy  hid  no  biisintss 
there,  I am  ifiaid,  and  I sir'll!  hive  to  tell  them  tli  it  tlu  hctun  •>  aic 
not  suitable  to  then  nteds 

On  Sundi\  at  breakfast,  Sheppaid  ddistitd  m mdKtment  on 
poor  Rupeif^  for  admiiing  Mi  Wells  inel  ihinhng  tnith  b(aut\, 
beauty  tiuth  Norton  and  Lytton  took  up  the  ittiek  and  even 
James  ind  (jerald  (v\ho  was  there)  st  ilibed  him  in  tlu  buk  1 inillv 
I vtTon  enraged  it  Rupeits  defences  thoioudiK  le^st  his  tempei 
ind  chlnered  a violent  person  il  ittiek, 

7 M he\Ti(s  to  Duruan  Giant,  jnd  I (hr uaiy  ii)0() 

Whit  do  \ou  think  I hi\e  neemd  to  d i)  the  ofh  i ef  an 
i}ipomtnient  to  Ik  lepiese  nt  iti\(  of  H M Cioseinmtiu  on  tlu 
Peimment  Inte initional  Ceimmission  foi  Xgiieultuu  at  Rnrm 
Silu\  7,')0o  iiuuasmg,  duties  piactu  ill)  rnJ  Shill  J aeeepl  * 
Will  you  come  with  me  if  1 do  ^ W^ould  )(u  like  the  post  * Nothing 
Ills  happened  to-da\  is  1 ha\c  been  teaching  tlu  elciaents  >1 
eeonomics  since  it  bee  m 

On  Sundas  Sheppaid’s  silon  cuiitniuid  until  aflei  2 am  witli 
himself,  Gerald  Rupeit,  Master  Biiitll  and  me  \n  attuk  on 
Cjeiald,  led  by  Rupeil  foi  < ailing  himsell  i ( hnslian  when  he  ’sri  t 
one  Master  B had  never  seen  a red  set-to  befene  ind  loied  it, 
screaming  with  excitement 


7 M Keynes  to  Duncan  Grant,  loth  February  ic)og 

. The  excitement  of  this  place  when  combined  with  a good 
deal  of  work  is  enough  to  unhinge  anyone  and  I really  do  not  know 
how  anv  of  us  last  through  the  eight  weeks  of  it 

* The  F/onowiU  newspaper  27th  Tebriiary  20th  March  ^nd  8th  May  1909 
^ Ibid  2nd  February  iqoq  ’ Rupert  Brooke 


148  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1909 

Last  night  MacCarthy  appeared,  bringing  Hilaire  Belloc  with 
him,  and  Rupert  gave  a supper  party  from  half-past  ten  to  half-past 
one.  The  usual  collection  of  people,  Gerald,  Master  B.,  James, 
Daddy  and  me.  Belloc  is  an  astounding  theatrical  figure,  and 
maintained  a monologue  for  the  whole  three  hours.  . . . 

In  the  Easter  Vacation  he  took  fresh  air  with  his  family  at 
Whitchurch,  near  Tavistock  in  Devon,  playing  golf  with  his 
father,  and  then  liad  a fortnight  at  Versailles  with  Duncan  Grant. 
In  the  course  of  this  vacation  he  wrote  an  essay  on  IndcK  Numbers, 
which  won  him  the  Adam  Smith  Prize.  He  may  have  felt  that 
it  was  desirable  to  have  some  academic  recognition  of  his  skill  as 
an  economist,  since  he  had  not  taken  the  Tripos.  His  w'ork  on 
Probability  no  doubt  aided  him  in  the  Index  Number  problem. 

J.  A/.  Keyfic\  to  Duncan  (hant^  lotk  May  iQog 

Oh,  they've  announeed  t()-da>  that  1 have  got  the  Adam  Smith 
Pri/e,  /Go  down,  so  \^osailles  more  than  paid  its  way.  . . . 

To-night,  instead  of  ])reparing  a lecture  I have  been  reading  the 
examiiieis’  criticisms  on  my  essay.  One  of  them,  the  Piofessor  at 
Oxfoid,^  and  supposed  to  be  the  leading  authcTiity  on  the  subject  of 
the  essay,  seems  to  me  hopeless,  I feel  lonvinccd  that  Tni  right  on 
alm(»st  every  point  he  attacks  and  that  where  rny  argument  is  novel 
he  simply  has  not  attended  to  it.  Ills  uiticisms  show^  a cloud  mind 
and  I feel  1 could  never  convince  him  since  he  wouldn’t  ever  properly 
attend  to  what  1 was  saying.  . . . 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  Duncan  Gfant,  14th  May  igog 

GeollVey  [his  bi other  ] is  an  extraordinary  fc'llow.  The  other  day 
he  wrote  a very  affectionate  letter  to  Mr.  Henry  James  who’s  a total 
stranger  to  him,  asking  him  to  come  and  stay.  Mr.  Henry  James 
has  accepted  ; in  an  enormous  letter  even  more  complicated  than  a 
novel  beginning  “ Dc'ar  Geoffrey  Keynes  ”.  So  he  is  coming  from 
a Friday  to  Tuesday  at  the  end  of  the  term. 

My  rooms  are  completely  furnishc*d  n()w^  'Fhc  carpet  is  of  a 
delicious  substance,  but  t(K)  pale  perhaps  every  mark  is  shown.  . . . 

J,  M,  Keync^  to  Duncan  Gtanty  24th  May  igog 

Mr.  Henry  James  has  accepted  my  invitation  to  breakfast  on 
June  13th  — he  will  be  “ enchanted  ” to  come.  . . . 

* Professor  F.  Y.  Edgeworth. 


AET  26] 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 


149 

Memories  of  that  breakfast  are  lathcr  painfuL  Noiton,  James 
Strachey,  Duncan  Grant  and  Gerald  Shove  came  and  talked 
volubly  in  their  own  idiom  about  their  own  subjects.  Henry 
James  is  said  to  have  looked  thoioughlv  flummoxed.'  When,  alter 
breakfast,  Mr.  Desmond  MacC’arthy  appeared  at  the  door  his 
face  lighted  up  with  pleasuie  Heu  at  last  wa^  someone  who 
would  have  some  contact  with  something  that  he  unclei  stood. 
He  was  anxious  to  know  if  Rupcit  Brooke,  the  brilliant  undei- 
graduate,  was  a good  poet  and  c oiisultcd  MacC’ai ill) . I he  answer 
must  have  been  rather  disparaging,  for  James  is  icinembered  to 
have  said  “ Thank  goodness , ](  he  looked  like  that  and  was  a 
good  poet  too,  1 do  not  know  what  1 should  do  ”. 

In  Jul)  Keynes  was  with  his  family  again  m the  PvTeiues  climb- 
ing. Then  he  took  a house  at  Buifoid  (0\ori),  in  oidei  to  woik 
pc'aiefulK  onPiobabihty  1 lundscanietosl  lyin  iela\s  Swithin- 
bank,  James  Strache>,  Sheppard,  Cecil  la)loi,‘  Ilumphiey  Paul, 
Duncan  Giant,  his  mother,  and  his  sistei  Maigaret  He  had 
this  house  again  in  the  suinmci  ol  1910 


J A/.  K(ynts  to  Duman  15///  Odoba  T(p() 

1 sec  in  (o  have  spent  most  of  mv  time  s cing  pupils  1 have 
already  got  eighteen  ol  these,  which  will  be  lalhei  huil  v\oik,  hut 
ought  to  bring  in  neail>  /bo 


J M.  Keynes  to  Duncav  G^ant,  jof/i  Ottoba  7909 

lh(  wf)ik  of  the  don  i^  the  haidc  >t  work  in  tin  woild 


J.  A/.  Keynes  to  Duman  G)aniy  p^lh  Odoba  i(joy 

The  day  before  )esterda\  I founded  a Political  Economy 
CUub  for  the  undergiaduates  and  am  to  give  an  opening  piesi- 
dential  address  on  Wednesday  week  My  piivate  pupils  ha\e 

now  risen  to  24  m number.  So  woik  lies  heavy  on  me 

* An  altcrnalivc  version  supplied  by  Mr  MatCiailhv  from  H<niv  [anus’s  own 

account  is  that  he,  James,  had  to  do  all  the  talking,  while  the  young  mtn  showed  no 
powers  of  response.  “ It  was  like  the  Meet  of  a Hunt,  at  which  one  h'ld  to  pio\id< 
the  fox,  the  hounds  and  the  huntsman  oneselt  ” By  cithci  account  the  breakfast  was 
not  a success  ’ * 

* Subsequently  a great  ^choolmastei , pillar  of  Clifton  until  1 948 


150  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1909 

On  7tli  November  1909  he  was  able  to  tell  his  father  that  he 
was  now  drawing  an  income  of  £^oo  a year,  including  the  £100 
that  his  father  gave  him.  In  view  of  the  small  size  of  his  basic 
salaries,  and  of  the  fees  per  pupil,  he  must  have  had  to  work 
extremely  hard  for  this. 


J.  M.  Keyjies  to  Duncan  G)anl,  yth  Novembe)  igog 

...  I shall  piobably  examine  the  Merceis’  (hammar  School  in 
Ilolborn  in  December.  ...  It  will  take  the  whole  of  my  time  for 
live  days,  but  v^ill  bring  in  /^i5.  . . . 

In  1910  he  was  made  Director  of  Studies  for  undergraduates 
reading  economics  in  J’rinity,  and  thereby  became  Mr.  I).  H. 
Robertson’s  director. 

In  1911  he  was  still  grateful  for  small  increments. 


J.  AI.  Keynes  to  Dr,  J,  JSf.  Keynes^  6th  June  igii^ 

1 heard  from  Macaulay  yesterday  that  the  (Council  had  appointed 
me  to  an  annual  lectureship  in  Economics  with  a stipend  of  /\5o. 
For  this  I am  to  Ipctuie  to  members  of  the  college  iiee  of  charge  and 
do  any  supeivision  if  it  is  rccpiired.  I think  the*  terms  aie  ver> 
generous. 

The  Political  Economy  Club  referred  to  in  the  letter  of 
October  24th  develc^ped  into  his  Monday  Evenings  which  became 
famous.  They  were  <drcady  establishc'd  in  Robertson’s  under- 
graduate days  and  continued  regularly  every  term,  with  an  inter- 
ruption for  the  First  World  War,  until  1937.  By  the  advice  ol 
the  directors  of  studies  in  economics  in  the  various  colleges,  he 
selected  from  his  own  college  and  elsewhere  a dozen  or  more 
undergraduates  who  wTre  supposed  to  be  the  most  promising. 
Other  dons  were  also  invited,  but  on  a given  evening  there  would 
not  usually  be  more  than  one.  A paper  was  read  by  one  of  the 
undergraduates.  Lots  were  drawn  and  every  member  had  to 
speak  before  the  fireplace  in  the  order  determined  by  the  drawing. 
Keynes  himself  summed  up  at  the  end.  The  use  of  lots  appears  to 
have  had  a vogue  in  Cambridge  at  this  time.  It  was  used  at 
“ the  Society  (\chich  may  have  set  the  example),  at  Dickinson’s 
Discussion  Society,  and  at  Keynes’  Club.  The  practice  is,  I 


AET  26] 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 


*5* 

believe,  unknown  at  Oxford.  Does  this  indicate  a greater  cock- 
sureness on  the  part  of  a typical  Oxford  undergraduate,  always 
ready  to  get  upon  his  logs  ? Or  does  it  indicate  a greater  suavity 
of  Oxford  manners,  a kind  ( onsideration  foi  the  shy  man,  who  is 
allowed  to  remain  shv  until  after  a term  01  tvv  o he  finds  his  feet  with- 
out compulsion  ^ ^ The  following  is  Professor  E.  A.  G.  Robinson’s 
account  of  the  Club  - in  the  period  after  the  First  ^VorId  VVai. 

During^  those  ^ail)  post-wai  yr^ars  it  was  thioiit»li  (lie  Club  that 
Kevnes’  influence  was  widest  and  most  powtiful  Jt  was  essentially 
an  undergraduate  club  Dons,  both  eionomist  and  otheis,  who, 
like  Richard  Braithwaitc  or  fiank  Ramses,  weie  interested  in 
kindred  problems,  might  conu  Ji  Keynes  had  a visitor,  noie 
particuliily  a visitoi  from  abioad,  he  would  bung  him  But  the 
papers  in  nine  c«jses  out  of  ten  would  be  read  l)>  undergraduates  01 
young  reseaVcli  woikcis  in  those  diys  use  luhcrs  in  economics 
were  few,  then  distinction  from  undci graduates  imimpoi taut,  and 
the  PhD  unknown  To  the  unde  igiadii  vtc  of  the  caily  twenties, 
1 c^n  sa\  fiom  expciieiue,  Kevnes’  club  was  la'>c mating  but  alarm- 
ing. I ascinating  b(  cause  hei  e one  heaid  Ke)  nc  s,  a large  par  t of  the 
Faculty,  and  all  the  best  of  erne’s  iivals  discussing  in  lealistie  detail 
all  the  ical  and  most  urgent  problems  of  the  woild  Alaiming 
because  if  one  read  a paper  one  was  likely  to  find  one  s under- 
graduate eflbits  (1  speak  liom  punful  numoiyj  bcarig  dissected  bv  a 
visiting  Mr  Haw  trey,  destroyed  bv  the  full  powt  i of  1 lank  Ramsey’s 
dialectical  anal) sis,  and  when  one  had  maintaimd  one  s jiosition  to 
the  best  of  one’s  ability,  Keynes  would  '»iiin  up  m friendly  but 
utteily  devastating  fashion  1 learned  a (ciLain  symputiy  with  the 
prisemer  waiting  foi  the  judge ’s  bl  ick  cap.  Alarming  also  bee  luse  il  it 
was  not  one’s  turn  to  read  the  pape  i,  one  must  diaw  a number  from 
the  hand  of  the  Secrctaiy,  and  take  one’s  turn  on  the  heailhrug  to 
discuss  a paper  on  a subject  about  which  one  might  well  feel  an 
embarrassing  ignorance  in  the  picsence  of  some  of  the  most  enlical 
minds  of  Europe  But  a wondeiful  training,  becau  v m Kevnes’ 
presence  there  wt'ie  certain  for  ms  of  nonsense  that  one  diet  not  enjoy 
perpetiatmg  once,  and  rcmembcied  for  life  not  to  peipetrite  a 
second  time. 

* This  process  ol  lot  vvas  even  extended  to  a dining-chib  known  as  Ihc  r raniuni 
which  met  once  a month  bctwe« ii  the  two  wars  and  consisted  nf  Bloomsbury 
below)  and  thereby  mainly  C ambndge  men  Kc \m  s \sas  a mt  inlnr  during  the  latt<  1 
pait  of  Its  existence  Lots  were  used  to  determine  who  should  sit  next  to  one  another 
at  dinner  I am  informed,  however,  that  it  is  no  longir  a common  piactic  in 
( ambndge 

Economic  Journal,  March  1947 


152  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1909 

Through  his  Club,  Keynes  knew  intimately  right  down  to  his 
illness  in  1937  all  the  best  of  each  generation  of  Cambridge  eco- 
nomists, and  exercised  a more  personal  influence  upon  them  than 
anyone  else.  The  very  great  influence  of  Professor  Pigou  on  the 
whole  technique  of  Cambridge  economic  thought  in  our  generation 
was  of  a rather  different  character  --  exercised  less  personally  and 
more  through  his  writings  and  lectures.  And  through  the  Club  we 
insensibly  acquired  certain  elements  in  Keynes’  own  approach  to 
the  problems  of  economics.  In  the  early  years  his  interests  were 
almost  wholly  in  the  practical  problems  of  economic  policy.  I can 
remember  very  few  papers  on  purely  theoretical  issues,  though  we 
covered  a very  wide  range  of  questions.  I’he  choice  was  mainly 
our  own,  made  in  consultation  with  the  undergraduate  Secretary, 
but  our  tastes  were  in  some  measure  the  consequence  of  his. 

I will  only  add  to  this  account  two  impressions  of  my  own.' 
One  must  imagine  Keynes  very  cosily  arranged  in  the  corner  of 
the  sofa  beside  the  fireplace,  his  legs  outstretched,  his  hands 
tucked  into  his  cuffs,  on  his  face  an  expression  of  kindly  inferest. 
One  might  know  that  ruthless  criticism  would  come  in  due  course  ; 
but  for  the  time  being  one  had  the  impression  \Jiat  he  was  eager  to 
hear  what  one  had  concocted,  and  that  he  was  essentially  one’s 
friend,  covering  one  with  his  supp4>rt  and  protection.  Then  in 
the  summing  up,  it  was  not  only  the  criticism  — which  might  not 
always  be  fierce  — that  was  “ devastating  ” ; it  was  also  the  c.xtra- 
ordinary  range  and  variety  of  knowledge  that  he  invariably  dis- 
played ill  relation  to  the  subject  of  the  paper.  Here  one  had 
worked  away  for  two  or  three  weeks,  studying  the  special  litera- 
ture, and  then  Keynes,  without  preparation  and  out  of  his  own 
stock,  seemed  to  know  so  very  much  more,  whatever  the  subject 
might  be.  That  set  a standard,  too  high  indeed  for  most  of  us. 

In  addition  to  these  heavy  teaching  duties,  he  already  had  in 
this  early  period  some  administrative  work.  In  1910  he  was 
elected  to  the  “ Special  Board  for  Economics  and  Politics  ”,  and 
in  the  autumn  of  that  year  he  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Board, 
which  he  remained  until  the  end  of  1914.  Thus  with  his  father 
in  the  Chair,  the  Keyneses  might  be  said  to  have  Cambridge 
Economics  in  their  pocket ! 

His  examining  duties  in  Holborn  in  the  following  December  ^ 
were  the  occasion  of  his  making  a better  arrangement  for  a perma- 
nent footing  in  London.  He  took  two  rooms  in  21  Fitzroy  Square, 

* Formed  during  my  viait  to  C^ambridge  in  1 922 , cf.  ch.  viii,  5.  ^ Cf.  p.  1 50  above. 


ABT.  26] 


FELLOW  OF  KING^S  153 

which  he  shared  with  Duncan  Grant,  the  latter  using  one  room 
as  a studio  and  Keynes  the  other  for  a bedroom  when  he  wished  to 
visit  London.  Duncan  Grant  lived  with  his  family  at  Hampstead. 
During  the  examination  Keynes  had  to  work  hard  at  the  papers, 
but  went  one  evening  to  a party. 


J,  M,  Keynes  to  Alts.  Keynes ^ i8th  Deiembet  i<joy 

At  midnight  vcslerda)  1 went  w'ith  some  friend'^  to  a fancy  dress 
supper  party  (clad  as  a cook)  - ~ when  who,  to  niy  immense  surprise, 
should  enter  but  Geoffrey ! --  clad  as  an  ancient  Briton.  Then  on 
the  top  of  Max  Beerbohm,  Will  Rothenstein,  Wilson  Steei,  and  all 
the  other  aitists,  in  came  a whole  tiain  of  them  CJwen  and 
Margaret  Darwin,^  Ka  Cox,^  Kaiin  Costelloe,  Justin,"'  Riipeit, 
Jacques, 4 all  in  the  most  ornate  garments.  1 was  never  more  aston- 
ished. Had  you  heard  anything  about  it  Ai  two  o’(  loc  k in  the 
morning  they  w'ere  gallivanting  in  the  streets  of  Lemdon  as  dead 
leaves  before  the  West  Wind. 

t 

7'his  winter  there  was  a Geiieial  Election,  (onseejuent  upon 
the  rejection  of  Lloyd  George's  Budget  by  the  House  of  liOids. 
Keynes  wrote  a long  letter  to  the  Camhridiic  Daily  News  on  the 
Liberal  sidc.s  In  January  he  went  to  support  his  old  hlton  and 
Cambridge  friend,  Edward  Hilton  Young  (Lord  Kennet,  brother 
of  Geoffrey  Ycmng),  who  was  standing  as  a Liberal  for  East 
Worcester.  Headquarters  were  in  Birmingham. 


J.  Ad.  Keynes  to  Airs.  Keynes,  8lh  January  if)  10 

It’s  a good  thing  ffiat  1 came  ^e'^terdav  as  on  iny  arrival  I found 
a note  saying  that  I must  at  once  make  my  way  to  7'he  Shelter, 
Blackwell,  about  12  miles  from  here  and  address  a meeting.  1 got 
on  all  right,  but  shall  feel  more  at  home  tonight,  1 expect. 

J.  M.  Keynes 

Fellow  of  King's  College,  Cambiidge 
is  billed  to  speak  somewhere  every  night. 

The  rural  districts  are  solid  Liberal,  but  are  sw'amped  unfortun- 
ately by  the  outlying  parts  of  Birmingham. 

I am  going  to  enjoy  myself  very  much,  I think.  . . . 

’ Daughters  of  Sii  George  Darwin,  afterwards  Mrs.  Raverat  and  Mrs.  Geoffrey 
Keynes.  * Afterwards  Mrs.  Will  Ainold-Foster. 

3 Justin  Brooke  - no  relation  of  Rupert,  the  poet.  ^ 

^ Jacques  Raverat.  ® 24th  December  1909. 


154  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1910 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Strackey^  14th  January  igio 

Pve  been  enjoying  myself  here  enormously,  but  am  leaving 
tomorrow.  Life  without  a howling  audience  to  address  every  evening 
will  seem  very  dull.  Have  you  any  picture  in  your  mind  of  Birming- 
ham and  its  inhabitants  ? 

The  Easter  Vacation  brought  very  different  scenes,  when  he 
visited  Greece  and  Constantinople  with  Duncan  Grant.  In  the 
summer,  after  a visit  to  Mrs.  Berenson  at  Oxford,  with  all  the 
comfort  and  luxury  of  it,  he  had  some  money-making  toil  at 
Hammersmith  in  London  : 

J,  M,  Keynes  to  Duncan  Gtant^  loth  July  igio 

Theie  is  an  unexpected  vacancy  to  do  in  Han irnci smith  what  1 
did  List  December  in  Holborn,  and  for  the  sake  of liavc  agreed 
to  go.  As  it’s  the  largest  centic  in  England,  1 shall  get  no  times  off 
and  will  have  to  sit  thcie  daily  from  9.30  till  8.  . . . 

Then  more  work  on  Probability  at  Burf)rd.  Some  of  last  gear’s 
visitors  reappeared,  and  also  Daniel  Macmillan  and  Frankie 
Birrell.  In  the  midst  of  this,  to  refresh  himself,  iTe  miidc  a bicycling 
tour  over  the  Berkshire  downs  and  further  westw.ird. 

In  the  later  part  of  this  year  he  became  involved  in  a fierce 
controversy  with  Karl  Pearson.  He  published  the  review'  of  a 
study  made  l^y  Miss  Elderton,  assisted  by  Karl  Pearson,  on  the 
influence  ol  parental  alcoholism  on  offspring.^ 

The  authors  had  inl'erred  from  a sample  the  absent  e of  malign 
influence.  Keynes  questioned  the  sufliciency  of  the  sample,  and 
held  that  the  logic  of  the  arguments  was  imperfect.  His  mind  was 
no  doubt  already  full  of  the  pitfalls  of  statistical  inference.  His 
review  ended  with  the  words  : “ As  a contribution  to  the  solution 
of  the  general  problem  the  memoir  is  almost  valueless,  and,  from 
its  failure  to  direct  the  reader’s  attention  to  essential  facts,  actually 
misleading.  As  a study  in  statistical  method  it  is  a salient  example 
of  the  application  of  a needlessly  complex  mathematical  apparatus 
to  the  initial  data,  of  which  the  true  character  is  insufficiently 
explained,  and  which  are  in  fact  unsuited  to  the  problem  in  hand.” 
Meanwhile  Alfred  Marshall  broke  his  “ almost  absolute  rule 
against  controversial  correspondence  ” by  writing  to  The  Timesr 
The  persuasive  powder  of  Marshall’s  arguments  is  rather  spoilt, 

' Jnmnal  oj  the  Royal  Statistical  Society y JiMly  1910. 

^ 7t{i  July,  2nd  August,  and  19th  August  1910. 


AEr  27J 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S  155 

for  later  readers,  by  his  shocked  tone.  Pearson  was  stung,  and 
replied  in  a pamphlet  entitled  The  Influence  of  Parental  Alcoholim 
on  the  Physique  and  Abditx  of  the  OJfspnng:  A Reply  to  the  Cambridge 
luonornists.  Keynes  made  *1  lejoindcr  in  a letter  which  seemed 
devastating;  ^ but  Pearson  had  some  defence,^  and  Keynes  made 
a final  reply, ^ nioie  judicial  now,  in  the  grand  manner,  maintain- 
ing his  oiigiual  position  th*il  Pearson's  satnple  and  methods  were 
inadequate. 

The  contioveisy  meanwhile  had  become  widespuad.  Or. 
Mary  Stuige  and  Sir  X'ictoi  ilorslc)  producc‘d  a pamphlet. 
Keynes  made  a clever  use  of  those  of  thc‘ir  arguments  which  were 
good.  Pigou  joined  in  the  fiay  with  a short  article, + restating 
the  main  Cambiidge  position  in  most  carefully  worded  sentences, 
as  though  cautidusly  picking  his  steps  among  burning  cinders. 

Keynes  showed  his  brilliant  jiowers  as  a contrcncrsialist ; his 
style  was  delightful ; he  had  rapier  thrusts  and  plent\  of  jokes 
and  nuances  of  phrase,  making  Peaison  look  vc'ry  foolish,  more 
ioolisfi  than  he  was.  While  Keynes  had  good  points,  it  is  not 
apparent  that  Pearson  was  completely  in  the  wrong.*^ 

In  the  issue  of  \\\c  Joinna!  of  the  Royal  Slalislual  Society  in  which 
Keynes’  last  letter  ajipeaied,  there  was  also  a note  by  him  on 
‘'The  Principal  Averages  and  the  Laws  o)  Isrror  VNhich  lead  to 
them 

Keynes  was  also  involved  in  the  second  General  Election  ol 
KJIO. 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  Duruan  Giant^  6th  Deiemba  i()io 

Nothing  has  haj.pened  here  except  a (icnc‘i.il  Llc^ction.  Jt 
occupies  our  tongues  appallingly  and  we  go  to  lh(*  I nion  every 
night  to  cheer  the  lesults,  wheie  it  a]>])ears  that  all  'foriec  luive 
bass  voices  <iiid  all  laberals  tenor.  Last  night  I spoke  at  a \^er) 
enthusiastic  meeting  for  Montagu  at  lliston,  whe  re  Ghivers  makes 
his  jams.  "1  he  audience  was  entirely  male  and  very  much  ^ xc  ited  in 
our  favour  so  T found  it  most  exciting  to  addu'ss  them.  . . . 

He  had  maintained  his  interest  in  India.  \Ve  find  him  writing 
a spirited  letter  in  protest  against  disparaging  remarks  about  the 
liiclian  students  at  Cambridge.^ 

* Journal  of  the  Royal  ^Statistnal  ^ocietVy  Ut.cenilxr  H)i(*  ^ Had  January  1911 

’ Ibid  February  19 1 r \\  estmimier  (ia-ette,  ^inW  ihrudry  1911 

Keynes  made  a very  brusque  attack  in  llir  Tieaiise  on* Probability  on  some  of 
Pearson’s  woik  on  Piobabihly.  * Cambridge  Renew,  171b  Ma>  1909 


156  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1911 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Duncan  Grants  24th  October  igog 

The  reason  I couldn’t  come  this  morning  was  the  appearance 
of  an  embassy  from  the  India  Office  to  discuss  Indian  prices  and 
currency.  Professor  Marshall  and  I and  the  ambassadors  have  just 
completed  a six  hours’  discussion  of  the  question.  I found  it  extremely 
interesting,  but  it  has  left  me  rather  exhausted.  . . . 

In  1910  he  was  writing  to  the  India  Office  to  point  out  errors 
in  the  statistics  of  the  Indian  Trade  Journal.  He  maintained  a 
correspondence  with  Mr.  Lionel  Abrahams  of  the  India  Office 
with  whom  he  saw  eye  to  eye  on  many  points  concerning  the 
rupee.  In  the  spring  of  1911,  he  wrote  a papei  on  the  Indian 
Currency  Question,  which  is  the  first  manifestation  of  his  path- 
breaking capacity  as  an  economist.  It  was  read  to  die  Royal 
Economic  Society  at  its  quarterly  meeting  — those  were  arduous 
days  — on  the  9th  May  1911  ; it  was  printed  in  India  for  circu- 
lation to  those  in  the  Government  of  India  who  were  concerned, 
but  it  was  not  published.  It  contains  the  essence  of  the  ideas 
that  were  developed  in  his  volume  published  two  years  later. 


Extract  Jrom  Paper  on  the  Indian  Currency  Question 

I will  endeavour  to  give  reasons  for  thinking  that  this  existing 
system  to  which  the  name  of  Gold  Exchange  Standard  has  been  given, 
is  something  much  more  civilised,  much  more  economical  and  much 
more  satisfactoiy  than  a gold  currency.  I should  like  to  see  it 
openly  established  m India  on  a permanent  basis  and  all  talk  of  an 
eventual  gold  currency  definitely  abandoned. 

The  Government  of  India  has  been  the  first  to  adopt  the  Gold 
Exchange  Standard  on  a large  scale.  But  every  year  there  are  fresh 
converts ; nor  will  it  be  long  before  it  becomes,  in  effect,  the  standard 
of  half  the  woi  Id.  And  out  of  it,  in  my  belief,  will  be  evolved  the 
ideal  currency  of  the  future.  . . , 

The  following  is  inter-esting  in  view  of  his  subsequent  opinions. 

Time  has  dealt  satisfactorily  with  what  were  originally  the  two 
principal  grounds  of  criticism : — First,  that  the  new  system  was 
unstable;  and  second,  that  a depreciating  currency  is  advantage- 
ous to  a country’s  trade. 

The  reasons  for  these  opinions  were  marshalled  with  great  clarity 
and  succinctness. 

His  reputation  as  an  economist  was  growing.  In  April  1911 


AKT.  28] 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 


*57 

his  father,  Dr.  Keynes,  was  elected  to  an  Honorary  Fellowship 
of  his  old  college,  Pembroke.  Alfred  Marshall  wrote  to  congratu- 
late him. 

Alfred  Marshall  to  Dr,  J.  jV*.  Keynes,  28th  April  igii 

Among  your  many  honours,  there  is  perhaps  none  greater  than 
that  of  being  the  father  of  J.  M.  Keynes. 

In  the  Easter  Vacation  he  was  with  Duncan  Grant  in  Tunis 
and  Sicily,  and  paid  a visit  to  Settignano  on  his  way  bark.  The 
house  at  Burford  was  not  resumed  that  summer.  For  part  of  tlic 
vacation  he  was  in  Cambridge  working  hard  at  German  treatises 
on  Probability.  He  also  went  and  spent  some  time  under  canvas 
near  Moreton  Hampstead  in  Devon  in  a camp  organised  by  Justin 
Brooke,  where  the  Olivier  sisters,*  Virginia  Siej>hen,  Rupert 
Brooke,  Maynard’s  brother  Geoffrey,  and  other  congenial  spirits 
were  present. 

Tn  the  second  half  of  September  he  went  on  a grand  Liberal 
tour  of  Ireland,  organised  by  the  ‘‘Eighty  (Uub  ” (i5th-30th 
September). 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  G\  L.  Strachey,  20th  September  igii 

This  Irish  affair  is  proving  extraordinarily  interesting  — in 
Dublin,  especially,  it  was  an  experience  of  another  life.  But  they 
work  us  to  death  and  my  constitution  has  already  completely 
crumbled.  . . . 

J,  M.  Keynes  to  Duncan  (hart,  ^rd  October  kjii 

It  is  now  a week  since  I left  the  Eighty  Club.  The  affair  was 
very  interesting,  but  a point  came  when  I could  support  crowd  life 
no  longer  and  when  I felt  as  if  I should  go  mad  if  1 heard  another 
speech.  So  1 left  Gerald  to  whirl  on  with  them  and  deserted.  You 
have  not,  I suppose,  ever  mixed  with  politicians  at  close  quarters. 
They  are  awfuL  I think  some  of  these  must  have  been  dregs  anyhow, 
but  I have  discovered,  what  previously  1 didn’t  believe  possible,  that 
politicians  behave  in  private  life  and  say  exactly  the  same  things  as 
they  do  in  public.  Their  stupidity  is  inhuman.  The  most  decent 
people  were  the  Morning  Post  reporter  . . . and  a charming  old 
peer  called  Lord  Saye  and  Sele.  There  were  one  or  two  others, 

* Daughters  of  Sir  Sidney  (Lord)  Olivier. 


158  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1911 

whose  characters  were  not  particularly  sympathetic  to  me,  but  were 
really  all  right.  The  rest  of  them  had  minds  and  opinions  as  deplor- 
able as  their  characters.  . . . Oh,  I forgot  Mrs.  Max  Muspratt,  a 
middle-aged  lady  whom  I found  very  sympathetic  and  who  thor- 
oughly agreed  with  me  about  the  rest  of  the  company.  Our  progress 
through  Ireland  was  of  the  nature  of  a royal  procession.  We 
travelled  in  a private  saloon  train  and  were  received  everywhere  with 
addresses  (we  must  have  received  thirty  or  forty),  illuminations,  and 
bands  playing  “Rule  Britannia”  and  “God  save  Ireland”.  Td  a 
good  many  very  interesting  conversations  with  local  notabilities.  . . . 

Ireland  is  almost  entirely  made  up  of  undulating  grass  lands, 
hedged  and  walled  into  small  fields,  and  of  a great  deal  of  water,  lakes 
and  rivers.  The  fields  are  richly  green,  the  air  is  soft  and  the  whole 
thing  very  charming,  es])ecially  in  the  evening  light.  The  trees  and 
the  country  have  a much  licher,  warmer  colour  than  in  England,  but 
there  is  no  arable  whatever.  Yet  I think  England  is  piefeiable  — a 
great  part  of  Ireland  seems  to  me  unexpectedly  to  lack  mystery  and 
not  to  make  up  for  this  by  peac  ehdness.  Galway  and  Aran  (and  I 
dare  sa>  Gonncmaia  where  I didn’t  go)  are  a great  exception  t)  this. 
Galway  town  is  very  romantic  and  the  Aran  Islands,  though  1 didn’t 
stay  there  long  enough  to  get  a quite  clear  irnpiession,  obviously 
wonderful.  The  coast  and  the  sea  reminded  me  both  of  Greece  and 
of  the  Orkneys,  and  Aran  itself  is  a bare  stony  upland  of  the  same 
material  as  Syracuse.  It  was  vei\  strange  and  interesting  and  the 
people  fine  and  healthy  instead  of  rather  mean  looking  as  so  many 
of  the  childrcm  and  men  of  Ireland  are.  . . . Here  [Glenganifi, 
County  Cork]  I am  in  the  regular  tourist  part  of  the  country. 
Islands,  hills,  scm,  lakes,  streams,  worlds  and  open  country  inexti  ic  ably 
mixed  up  together,  and  I suppose  it’s  beautiful.  But  this  too  seems 
quite  lacking  in  my’stery  and  is  exactly  what  the  hotel  keeper,  having 
the  best  taste  of  his  class,  would  ha\e  created.  Although  the  country 
is  wild  and  almost  uninhabited,  I feel  .is  if  Queen  \"ictoria  and  the 
Prince  Consort  must  some  time  about  1850  have  unveiled  it  and 
declar  ed  it  open.  . . . 


3 

Probability  was  nearing  completion  and  events  were  drawing 
him  inexorably  away  from  logic  to  economics.  In  the  autumn 
of  this  year  he  was  offered,  and  accepted,  the  editorship  of  the 
Economic  Journal^  which  his  father  haci  refused  twenty-one  years 
before.  It  was  a great  honour  for  one  so  young,  who  had  published 
little.  Marshall’s  strong  support  was  no  doubt  crucial.  An 
editorial  committee  was  appointed,  but  it  is  not  supposed  that  it 


AET.  28] 


FELLOW  OF  KING’S 


159 

had  much  occasion  to  interfere.  He  retained  the  editorship  for 
thirty-three  years,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  the  author  of  this 
volume.  But  from  1919  onwards  he  had  a joint  editor.^  In  1913 
Keynes  also  became  Secretary  to  the  Royal  Economic  Society. 
And  for  a large  part  of  thirty- three  years  he  successfully  managed 
its  finances,  with  the  goodwill  of  Mr.  Alfred  Hoare,  who  was 
olficially  the  Honorary'  Treasurer  until  1937.  The  aifairs  of  the 
Society  prospered  exceedingly. 

On  taking  over,  he  discovered  heavy  arrears,  lidgeworth 
often  found  it  difficult  to  make  up  his  mind.  Among  articles 
which  had  long  been  waiting  for  a verdict  was  one  by  the  famous 
and  formidable  Archdeacon  Cunningham.  It  was  embarrassing 
for  a young  man  to  reject  work  by  one  so  eminent,  but  he  grasped 
the  nettle  firmly.  Thereafter  he  would  not  allo\v  any  accumula- 
tion ; if  there  was  no  more  room  in  the  next  issue,  he  refused.  He 
maintained  the  tradition  of  having  some  contributions  from  per- 
sons outside  the  academic  field  and  of  combining  realistic  with 
more*thcoretical  studies.  Indeed,  Edgeworth,  oddly  enough,  had 
been  very  inhospitable  to  purely  theoretical  work  from  any  pen 
other  than  his  own,  and  Keynes,  with  so  many  more  contacts 
outside  the  academic  world  than  Edgeworth  ever  had,  judged  it 
necessary  to  redress  the  balance  in  favour  of  academic  theorists. 

Keynes  performed  his  duties  with  the  minimum  of  fuss.  On 
retiring  he  explained  that  his  only  apparatus  was  one  drawer  in 
his  desk  for  his  papers  and  some  porcupine  clips  to  hold  them  in 
bundles.  Through  thi^  economy  in  overheads,  the  Society  had 
flourished.  But  if  he  was  economical  in  expenditure,  he  was  lavish 
in  the  time  that  he  devoted  to  contributors,  lie  often  sent  com- 
ments of  many  pages  on  arti<’lcs  submitted,  both  when  he  accepted 
and  when  he  rejected.  In  the  latter  case,  especially  with  younger 
writers,  he  explained  his  objections  at  great  length.  In  the  former 
case  he  suggested  improvements,  and  many  articles  were  re-sub- 
mitted several  times  before  their  final  appearance.  Authors  were 
usually  grateful  in  the  end  for  this  editorial  insistence  on  their 
perfecting  their  work.^  Great  as  the  pressure  of  his  (>thcr  business 

' Edgeworth,  who  had  been  editor  from  1890  to  191 1 , was  brought  back  to  a joint- 
editorship  in  1919,  when  Keynes  was  busy  peace-making.  Edgeworth  was  suc<*ecdcd 
as  joint  editor  by  Professor  D.  H.  MacGregor  in  1926  and  he  by  Pioiossor  IL.  A.  O. 
Kobiiisoii  in  193^. 

2 An  egoistic  footnote  niav  perhaps  be  allowed  to  ihc  aiithoi  who  was  on  one 
occasion  injured  by  Ke>ncs’  zeal.  During  1928  I submitied  a short  article,  setting 
out  what  I called  the  “ inciemciit  of  aggregate  demand  cui\e  Keynes  showed  this 
to  E.  P.  Ramsey  who  raised  objections.  Being  in  poor  health  at  the  time,  and  heavily 


i6o  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1912 

finally  became,  Keynes  maintained  this  habit.  He  esteemed  his 
editorship  as  an  occupation  having  the  highest  claim. 

The  Easter  Vacation  found  him  at  Beaulieu,  on  the  Riviera, 
with  Gerald  Shove.  He  also  went  on  a riding  expedition  with 
Mr.  Archibald  Rose,  setting  out  from  Salisbury.  Mr.  Rose  recalls 
how  they  arrived  one  Sunday  morning  at  Wells,  not  too  late  for 
church.  They  entered  the  cathedral  shyly,  as  they  were  much 
bespattered  with  mud,  and,  to  their  consternation,  the  verger 
showed  them  to  a front  pew.  The  preacher  was  Dr.  Hensley 
Henson.^  The  main  theme  of  his  discourse  was  that  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  a physical  fact.  There  was  much 
murmuring  among  the  good  ladies  of  Wells  on  the  Green,  and 
Rose  himself  was  a little  upset.  He  recalls  how  Keynes  consoled 
him  that  evening.  Settled  in  his  easy  chair,  with  his  gc  ntle  smile 
and  comforting  expression,  as  of  one  who  had  knowledge  of  deep 
mysteries  — “ You  must  not  be  upset,'’  he  said ; “ this  fellow 
has  thought  deeply  about  these  matters  ; he  has  been  reading  and 
studying  all  the  time  that  you  have  been  on  the  far  frontiers  of 
empire ; he  knows  what  he  is  talking  about ; you  can  trust  him  ; 
it  is  quite  all  right,” 

In  the  course  of  their  riding  they  put  in  at  the  Crown  Hotel, 
Evcrleigh,  a delightful  village  in  the  midst  of  Salisbury  Plain. 
Keynes  w as  so  pleased  with  it  that  he  formed  the  plan  of  taking 
over  the  whole  place  for  himself  and  his  friends  in  the  summer 
holidays.  This  was  not  possible  in  August,  but  he  had  the 
whole  house  for  July  and  a number  of  rooms  reserved  for  August. 
Thither  many  of  his  friends  came  — Duncan  (rrant,  Sheppard, 
Gerald  Shove,  Frankie  Birrell,  Dilly  Knox,  Rupert  Brooke,  the 
Olivier  sisters,  Katherine  Cox,  Archibald  Rose,  Chester  Purves, 
Justin  Brooke,  Ferenc  Bekassy,  G.  H.  Luce,  and  Maynard’s  brother 
Geoffrey.  Many  looked  back  to  this  as  a delightful  holiday,  a high 


burdened  with  (ollei’e  duties,  I was  discourat>c*d  and  put  the  artklc  awa>  in  a drawer 
for  eighteen  months.  I then  took  the  matter  up  w^ith  Ramsey,  who  was  an  old  friend, 
and  he  recanted.  The  article  was  re-submitted  and  appeared  in  June  1930.  Mathe- 
matical demonstration  was  supplied  in  Dccembei  1931.  Mrs.  Robiason,  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  Professor  E.  A,  G.  Robiason,  1 echristeiied  the  “ increment  of  aggregate 
demand  curve  ” “ the  marginal  revenue  curve  This  now  appears  in  most  text-books 

of  economics.  Mrs.  Robinson  gave  recognition  to  my  publication  in  the  preface  to  her 
Economics  of  Imperfect  Competition,  and  referred  there  to  other  economists  who  inde- 
pendently had  the  same  idea.  Study  of  her  preface  indicates  that  if  Keynes  had  not 
listened  so  readily  to  Ramsey's  criticisnu  and  the  article  had  appeared  in  192B,  my 
claim  to  have  “ invented  ” this  well-known  tool  of  economics  would  be  without 
challenge. 

' Afterwards  the  Bishop  of  Hereford,  1918-20,  and  Bishop  of  Durham,  1920-39. 


ABT.  29] 


FELLOW  OF  KING^S  161, 

spot  in  the  days  before  1914.  Keynes  preserved  the  collective 
poems  and  collective  drawings  composed  during  the  evenings. 
Luce  was  a poet  and  a great  friend  during  these  years.  Keynes 
afterwards  financed  the  publication  of  his  poems  through  Mac- 
millan’s. But  Luce  eventually  followed  Swithinbank  eastwards 
and  taught  English  at  the  University  of  Rangoon. 

Bekassy  was  an  undergraduate  of  King's  who  made  a mark  in 
Cambridge.  After  Everleigh,  Keynes  paid  a visit  to  his  parents, 
who  lived  in  feudal  splendour  near  Budapest.  On  the  way  home 
he  made  a stay  in  Vienna,  which  was  (‘iitirely  to  his  taste. 

In  the  autumn  of  this  yeai  we  first  hear  of  a figure,  Keynes’ 
interest  in  whom  had  far-rea('hing  eflVcts  — Ludwig  Wittgenstein, 
an  Austrian  philosoi)her  of  great  genius.  Having  studied  engin- 
eering for  a period  at  Manchester,  he  came  to  Cambridge,  wheie 
he  was  attracted  to  Bertrand  Russell's  lectures  on  Mathematical 
I^ogic.  A great  friendship  eventually  spiang  up  with  Russell, 
but  the  friendship  with  Keynes  was  in  some  ways  more  important. 
Wittgenstein  had  something  of  the  waywardness  of  genius,  and 
was  not  naturally  inclin(‘d  to  follow  the  conventional  path  of  an 
academic  career.  Keynes  was  fascinated.  His  love  of  the  unusual 
and  the  exciting,  his  sympathetic  understanding  and  his  capacity 
for  friendship  came  into  play.  Theie  was  Keynes  the  thinker, 
the  writer,  the  man  of  business,  Keynes  the  omni-competent  ; 
but  there  was  also  Keynes  who  was  the  student  of  character  in 
all  its  forms,  the  undergraduate  friend  of  Strachey  and  his  friends, 
with  his  uncanny  insight  and  sage  sympatln.  He  was  thus  able 
to  have  some  influence  on  Wittgenstein  in  his  practical  life,  and 
he  was  alwa>s  his  advocate.  He  played  some  part  in  securing 
Wittgenstein's  return  to  (’ambridge  after  the  First  World  War, 
during  which  he  had  done  duty  in  Austria  as  a soldier  and  a sc  hool- 
teacher.  At  Cambridge  he  became  a Fellow  of  Trinity  and  eventu- 
ally Professor  of  Philosophy.  He  exerted  a dominating  influence 
over  the  younger  generatiem  of  philosophers,  and  his  influence  even 
extended  to  Oxford,  breaking  down,  from  a distance,  the  entrench- 
ments of  the  older  schools  of  thought  there. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Duncan  Grant,  12th  November  igi2 

Wittgenstein  is  a most  wonderful  character  — what  I said  about 
him  when  J saw  you  last  is  ejuite  untrue  — and  extraordinarily  nice. 
I like  enormously  to  be  with  him. 


M 


i(j2  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1912 

It  was  a satisfaction  to  Keynes  to  be  able  to  settle  the  details 
of  an  allowance  of  £200  a year  given  anonymously  by  this  new 
friend,  Wittgenstein,  to  his  old  friend  and  philosophical  mentor, 
W.  E.  Johnson,  in  order  to  enable  the  latter  to  cut  down  his  teach- 
ing commitments  and  have  more  time  for  research. 

It  is  normal  for  young  fellows  of  colleges,  after  finding  their 
feet,  to  feel  growing  discontent  with  the  way  in  which  their  seniors 
manage  affairs.  And  so  it  was  at  King’s.  A number  of  those, 
who  had  been  elected  recently,  began  to  form  a group  in  order 
to  promote  change.  The  principal  members  were  F.  E.  Adcock, 
Charles  Webster,  Diilwyn  Knox  and  A.  E.  Dobbs.  They  styled 
themselves  the  Young  Turks,  and  it  is  even  recalled  that  at  a 
( ouncil  of  war  held  before  a College  meeting,  one  of  them  arrived 
masked,  to  undciline  the  conspiratorial  nature  of  the  occasion. 
Keynes,  who  had  begun  to  form  his  own  opinictns  about  the 
College  fnuincc's,  was  glad  to  have  the  support  of  a senii-org*inised 
bloc  ol  votes,  while  the  group  on  its  side  welcomed  the  leadership 
of  such  an  admirable  spokesman.  lie  felt  that  the  College  was 
not  making  the  licst  use  of  its  tc^sources  and  that  developments 
were  held  up  through  (*\cessive  conservatism.  Ollege  bursars 
are  apt  to  luck  awa\  suipluses  in  order  to  obviate  extravagant 
expenditure. 

Although  the  revolt  seemed  to  be  running  on  normal  lines, 
it  was  pregnant  with  grcMt  things;  for  Keynes  was  eventually 
to  rc'volutionisc  the  finances  of  the  (k)llegc\  In  i()ii  he  was 
made  a mcmbci  of  the  Estates  Committee  and  an  Elector  to 
f’ellowships.  Matters  lemamed  cm  the  boil  lor  some  time.  The 
gieat  explosion  occurred  in  the  autumn  of  tc)I2.  Keynes  mewed 
three  motions.  One  attacked  the  maintenance  c^f  large  cash 
balances.  This,  although  frowned  upon  by  the  authorities,  was 
c ariied.  The  next  asked  for  a Committee  to  consider  the  integra- 
tion of  the  Kitchen,  Buttery,  and  Combination  Room  departments 
in  the  mattei  of  contracts  and  prices,  and  to  enquire  into  the 
conditions  of  the  employment  ol  staflV  This  too  was  earned  and 
Keynes  was  appointed  to  the  (^lommittee.  But  it  was  the  third 
motion  which  really  shook  the  College.  Keynes  proposed  an 
increase  in  Fellowship  dividends  from  120  to  £130  a year.  This 
was  revolutionary  indeed.  It  implied  lack  of  confidence  in  the 
Bursar  who  advised  the  College  as  to  the  amount  of  Fellowship 
‘‘dividend”  that  could  be  paid.  The  motion  was  decisively 

* Cl  his  tonccin  loi  the  staff  at  the  I moii  stven  years  earlier. 


aixt.  2<j]  FELLOW  OF  KING’S  163 

beaten,  but  many  were  left  wondering  what  might  be  in  store. 
The  older  members  were  not  completely  obdurate  ! At  the  same 
meeting  Keynes  was  elected  to  “ the  Council which  in  effect 
governed  the  College.  And  in  the  following  year  he  was  made  a 
member  of  the  committee  to  consider  a letter  of  resignation  from 
the  Bursar.  It  was  no  doubt  in  consequence  of  the  agitation  that 
an  assistant  bursar  was  appointed  in  the  following  year. 

Some  time  during  the  course  of  1912  he  began  work  on 
Indian  Cunency  and  Finance^  which  was  completed  early  in  1913. 
This  is,  by  common  agreement,  a work  of  first-rate  quality. 
Those  who  were  unconvinced  by  his  later  writings,  all  of  whic  h 
were  controversial,  like  to  acclaim  it  as  his  best  book.  The  sccimd 
chapter  ^on  the  Gold  Exchange  Standard)  is  of  general  interest, 
quite  apart  from  the  rupee  jnoblem,  and  has  become  a classic 
The  book  well  manifests  Keynes  characteristic  powers  and 
tendencies.  It  is  the  work  of  a theorist,  giving  practical  applica- 
tion to  those  esoteric  monetary^  principles  which  Marshall  had 
cxpoifnded  and  Keynes  was  explaining  in  the  Cambridge  class- 
rooms, and  at  the  same  time  it  showed  an  outstanding  gift  for 
penetrating  the  secrets  of  how  institutions  actually  work.  His 
India  Office  experience  and  the  ccaitacts,  which  he  had  main- 
tained, no  doubt  helped  him ; but  these  would  have  been  of  no 
value  without  his  peculiar  power  ol'  insight.  It  also  displayed 
his  thoroughness  in  amassing  all  available  information. 

Its  main  thesis  was  to  develop  the  ideas  in  the  paragraphs 
from  his  Royal  Economic  Society  paper  which  I have  cited.  In 
this  book,  as  in  all  his  works,  whether  on  domestic  unemployment 
or  international  monetary  institutions,  Keynes  appears  as  a man 
of  expedients,  full  of  plans  for  modifying  arrangements  in  this 
way  or  that,  in  order  to  produce  a better  result ; but,  unlike 
most  men  of  expedients,  he  always  related  his  projects  closely  to 
the  fundamental  theory  of  the  subject.  It  was  not  in  vain  that 
he  had  imbibed  in  his  early  youth  the  late  Victorian  respect  for 
first  principles. 

In  the  past  those  who  were  keenly  aware  of  the  complexities 
of  the  economic  system  as  a whole  had  tended  to  shun  particular 
expedients  and  to  inc  line  towards  laissez-faire,  Keynes  had  the 
courage  to  go  ahead,  believing  that  despite  the  interlocked  nature 
of  the  system  and  the  ramifying  effects  of  particular  interferences, 
it  was  possible  to  make  improvements.  He  was  a currency 
expert,  believing  in  the  importance  of  the  currency  question. 


164  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  tW3 

One  feels  in  these  pages  his  sense  that  currency  reform  could 
contribute  much  towards  making  India  a happier  country.  And 
at  the  same  time  he  had  his  eye  upon  wider  questions.  Might 
not  Indian  currency  reform  be  an  example  for  adoption  elsewhere  ? 
Although  a close  adherent  of  traditional  economic  theory,  he 
clearly  thought  that  its  proponents  took  too  facile  a view  about 
how  long-run  beneficent  forces  operate  through  particular  insti- 
tutions. Having  stated  certain  general  monetary  principles  they 
would  then  cite  the  detailed  working  of  the  British  Money  Market 
and  Foreign  Exchange  Market,  to  show  how  these  forces  worked 
in  practice.  But  Keynes  — and  this  kind  of  point  reappears  in 
other  writings  — argued  that  the  British  Gold  Standard  worked 
as  smoothly  as  it  did,  not  because  of  the  very  nature  of  a gold 
standard,  but  because  of  the  unique  position  of  the  London  Money 
Market  in  the  world.  This  has  now  become  a commonplace, 
but  it  was  a novelty,  anyhow  among  monetary  theorists,  at  the 
time. 

He  was  mainly  concerned  with  advocating  a gold  exchange 
standard  for  India  and  similar  countries.  He  opposed  those  who 
wished  for  a gold  currency,  the  reactionaries,  and  brought  to  bear 
his  powers  of  incisive  argument  and  satire.  In  one  passage  (page 
loi)  he  hints  that  the  time  may  not  be  far  distant  when  we  shall 
be  ready  to  put  something  better  in  place  of  the  Gold  (including 
the  Gold-Exchange)  Standard  itself. 

He  negotiated  with  Macmillan’s  for  publication,  at  the  same 
time  transferring  the  Tteatise  on  Piohability  from  the  Cambridge 
University  Press  to  them.  At  this  early  period  he  began  to  work 
on  lines  which  were  afterwards  to  prove  advantageous  to  him, 
by  persuading  Macmillan’s  to  share  profit  with  him  in  respect 
of  both  the  volumes,  on  a fifty-fifty  basis.  Indian  Cmnency  con- 
tinued to  sell  in  good  cjuantity  for  some  ten  years ; about  4900 
copies  had  been  sold  by  mid-1942,  on  which  he  realised  ;£^295. 
Before  Probability  appeared,  he  had,  for  reasons  which  will  be 
described,  gone  over  to  a full  profit  basis ; some  3500  copies  had 
been  sold  by  mid-1942,  and  no  less  than  £^^2  realised  by  him. 

In  the  spring  of  1913  came  the  pleasant  news  that  his  sister 
Margaret  was  engaged  to  be  married  to  Archibald  Vivian  Hill, 
Fellow  of  Trinity  College  and  physiologist  of  rising  repute.  In 
the  Easter  Vacation  Keynes  took  an  even  longer  journey  than 
usual  and  went  qff  to  visit  his  old  friend  Robin  Furness  in  Egypt. 

While  there  he  received  a communication  of  great  interest. 


aet.29]  fellow  of  KING'S  165 

A Royal  Commission  had  been  appointed  to  enquire  into  Indian 
Finance  and  Currency  and  he  was  invited  to  be  its  secretary* 
His  time  in  the  India  Office  was  yielding  a dividend ! But  there 
was  one  difficulty.  His  book  had  not  yet  appeared.  Would 
its  publication  be  prejudiced  ? He  telegraphed  back  to  enquire. 
Lionel  Abrahams  had  a proof  and  could  show  it  to  those  concerned. 

Telegram  /torn  Sir  William  Holdetness  to  J,  M,  Keynes^  April  1913 

Am  instructed  to  offer  you  seat  on  Commission.  This  is  con- 
sidered in  view  of  book  more  suitable  than  secretaryship  and  will 
give  greater  scope.  Hope  you  will  accept. 

This  was  a great  honour  for  a young  man  of  twenty-nine.  He 
consented  to  serve,  and  wrote  to  Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain,  who 
was  Chairman,  to  obtain  an  official  clarification. 

Austen  Chamberlain  to  J.  M.  AVy;/c?,  April  1913 

. . . 'fhe  selection  of  the  Commission  was  entirely  a matter  for 
Lord  Crewe.  He  knew  before  he  proposed  your  nairio  to  the  King 
that  you  were  publishing  this  book  and  told  me  that  h(‘  had  seen  the 
proofs  and  thought  that  the  character  of  the  br>ok  and  its  subject 
were  a qualification  and  your  method  of  treating  the  subject  no  bar 
to  your  appointment.  In  these  circumstances,  vou  are  at  liberty  to 
publish  it.  . . . 1 1 is  possible  that  you  might  wish  to  modif)  a phrase 
here  or  there,  but  of  this,  you  should  be  the  sole  judge. 

Very  civilised ! 

Indian  currency  had  been  a vexed  question  ever  since  the 
world  abandoned  bimetallism  in  1873.  India  left  the  Silver 
Standard  in  1893.  The  Fowler  Commission,  the  second  of  two 
within  a decade,  reported  in  1899  that  the  authorities  should  take 
orderly  steps  directed  towards  the  eventual  establishment  in  India 
of  a gold  standard  of  the  British  type,  with  gold  currency.  Actually, 
things  did  not  so  work  out.  A somewhat  different  system  was 
evolved,  by  ad  hoc  administrative  measures  adapted  to  meet 
particular  situations  as  they  arose.  The  system,  thus  developed, 
resembled  much  more  closely  a plan  put  forward  to  the  Fowler 
Commission  by  Mr.  A.  M.  Lindsay. 

There  had  been  a serious  crisis  in  1907-8.  There  were  various 
uncertainties  and  ambiguities  in  the  situation  and,  since  the  Fowler 
recommendations  were  clearly  obsolete,  the  time  seemed  ripe  for 


i66  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1913 

a new  survey.  Public  opinion  was  more  interested  in  the  sale  of 
some  silver  by  the  Government  of  India  to  a well-known  firm  of 
bankers,  which  was  said,  without  foundation,  to  have  been  given 
the  business  through  favouritism,  and  even  through  a family 
connection.  This  occurred  in  the  autumn  of  1912  and  was  clearly 
an  admirable  matter  for  Press  comment  and  Parliamentary 
question.  It  probably  precipitated  the  appointment  of  a new 
Commission. 

Keynes  had  a twofold  task.  In  the  first  place  he  had  to  convince 
the  Commission  of  his  view,  already  expressed  in  the  paper  to  the 
Royal  Economic  Society  and  his  book,  that  actual  developments 
had  been  in  the  right  direction  and  that  the  system,  by  now  known 
as  the  gold  exchange  standard,  was  superior  to  an  old-fashioned 
full  gold  standard.  We  do  not  know  if  this  task  was  difficult  ; 
anyhow,  it  was  successfully  achieved.  Chamberlain  scrupulously 
refrained  from  reading  Keynes'  book,  except  for  the  first  two 
chapters  of  it,  since  he  wished  to  give  an  unbiased  lead  to  the 
deliberations  of  the  Commission.  Only  when  the  trend  of  opinion 
had  become  clear  did  he  do  so. 


Austen  Chamberlain  to  J.  Af.  Keynes^  12th  August 

I scarcely  know  whether  to  congratulate  you  on  it  or  condole 
with  myself!  You  will  certainly  be  considered  the  author  of  the 
Commission’s  report  whenever  that  document  secs  the  light.  I am 
amazed  to  see  how'  largely  the  views  of  the  Commission  as  disclosed 
by  our  informal  discussions  are  a mere  repetition  of  the  carguments 
and  conclusions  lo  which  your  study  had  previously  led  yr)u.  . . . 

Although  there  were  difliculties  ahead,  the  progress  thus  revealed 
seemed  satisfactory. 

Keynes’  second  task  w^as  to  procure  a distinct  advance.  The 
possibility  of  doing  so  seemed  to  him  to  be  centred  upon  the 
establishment  of  what  was  called  a State  bank.  (This  must  not 
be  taken  to  be  synonymous  with  a Nationalised  bank.)  Mr.  E.  A. 
Hambro  had  added  a note  to  the  report  of  the  Fowler  Commission 
recommending  this.  His  proposal  had  been  favourably  considered, 
both  by  the  India  Office  and  by  the  Government  of  India  in  the 
following  years,  but  there  were  serious  obstacles  which  inhibited 
action.  In  his  annual  speech  to  the  Midland  Bank,  Sir  Edward 
Holden,  its  Chairman,  had  reopened  the  question  (24th  January 
1913).  Later  The  Times  had  a weighty  article  on  the  subject 


AEr  30] 


FELLOW  OF  KING^S 


167 

(14th  March  1913).  Mr.  Lionel  Abrahams,  Keynes’  India  Office 
friend  and  correspondent,  who  had  been  head  of  the  financial 
department  and  maintained  his  interest  in  its  business  when  he  was 
promoted  to  be  Assistant  Under-Sccrctary,  put  a memorandum 
before  the  Commission  in  favour  of  a State  l)ank.  The  C lommission 
assigned  to  Sir  Ernest  Cable  and  Keynes  the  holiday  task  of  pre- 
paring a dralt  proposal.  Keynes  had  some  consultations  with 
Cable,  but  it  seems  that  he  did  the  main  part  of  the  work  himself. 
Me  did  not  succeed  in  persuading  the  Commission  to  incoiporate 
it  in  its  report.  Important  witnesses  had  already  been  examined 
and  it  was  thus  too  late  to  get  their  views.  Some  felt  that  a visit 
to  India  would  be  necessary,  if  the  Commission  was  to  give  its 
authority  to  such  a far-reaching  proposal.  Although  this  dralt 
was  not  incorporated,  it  was  published  as  an  annexe,  and  received 
a very  good  .blessing  in  the  report.  'I’he  Secrct^iry  ol  State  and 
the  Government  of  India  were  urged  to  appoint  a small,  expert 
committee  to  eiK|uire  into  the  matter  without  delay  and  either 
reject,  the  propos<d  or  put  forward  <\  concrete  scheme  for  the 
authorities  to  act  upon. 

'I'his  annexe  by  Ke>nes  ina\  well  be  deemt^d  more  interesting 
than  the  report  itsedf.  He  had  to  tackle  some  very  thoiny  pro- 
blems. 'Fhere  was  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  (jovernment 
to  the  Bank.  He  was  eager  that  the  Bank  should  h<ive  a large 
measure  ol’  independence  and  envisaged  its  < apital  as  private. 
But  the  (Jovernment  was  to  have  a part  to  play  in  making  appoint- 
ments and  an  eventual  share  of  piofits,  when  thc‘se  exceeded  a 
certain  amount.  Afore  difficult  was  the  j)ossibility  of  jealousy 
and  friction  among  thc‘  three  great  Presidency  banks  and  the 
Exchange  banks,  laci  was  necessary,  and  Keynes  showed  his 
cunning.  Iherc  would  be  difficulties  if  one  of  the  Presidency 
banks  (presumably  the  Bank  of  Bengal)  was  elevated  into  being  the 
State  bank.  Keynes  hit  upon  a scheme  not  unlike  the  projected 
Fedenal  Reserve  System ; there  was  to  be  a Central  Board  and 
the  three  Presidency  banks  were  to  become  the  three  ‘‘  head 
cffiices  ” of  the  new  Bank.  It  does  not  appear  that  Keynes  looked 
to  America  for  guidance  — it  was  hardly  a place  to  which  one 
would  look  for  banking  wisdom  at  that  time ; there  arc  signs 
that  he  made  a closer  study  of  Continental  banking  developments, 
— but  there  is  a footnote  pointing  out  the  parallel  with  American 
proposals.  The  annexe  was  not  only  concerned  with  constituticmal 
matters  but  also  gave  him  scope  to  elaborate  mwe  fully  his  ideas 


i68  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  fws 

of  currency  management.  He  argued  that  in  due  course  it  would 
be  desirable  to  develop  in  India  a more  extended  money  market 
and  bank-rate  control. 

One  certainly  has  the  sense  that  in  this  fine  essay  Keynes  was 
thinking  not  only  in  terms  of  immediate  exigencies,  but  of  a system 
that  would  slowly  grow  to  maturity.  This  bank,  in  its  initial 
form,  would  merely  be  a starting-point.  By  successive  stages  the 
Indian  economy  would  surely  develop  into  a more  complex  and 
mature  organism.  What  is  equally  striking  is  the  moderation  of 
the  young  enthusiast  as  regards  the  immediate  benefits  he  claimed 
for  his  system.  This  was  no  crank  advocating  a panacea.  It  was  as 
though  he  already  had  the  wisdom  acquired  by  long  experience 
of  the  intractable  difficulties  in  human  relations.  There  was  a 
certain  unity  about  his  life’s  work.  Here  he  was,  just  reaching 
thirty  years  of  age,  making  the  draft  of  a monetary  plan  that  might 
be  the  beginning  of  a great  advance  in  the  development  of  the 
Indian  economy.  And  there  he  was,  thirty  years  later,  doing 
similar  work  for  a greater  organism  at  Bretton  Woods.  • 

In  fact,  India  only  achieved  her  central  bank  (Reserve  Bank 
of  India)  after  the  interruption  of  the  First  World  AVar  and  after 
two  more  Commissions  had  deliberated. 

Alfred  Marshall  to  J.  Keynes^  3rd  March  igi4 

I dipped  in  here  and  there,  and  then  read  the  conclusions : and 
finally  turned  negligently  to  the  Annexe.  But  that  held  me.  T had 
had  no  idea  you  had  written  it.  Much  of  it,  as  of  the  Report  itself, 
deals  with  matters  l)eyond  my  knowledge  and  judgment.  But  there 
is  quite  enough  of  it  within  my  understanding  for  me  to  have  been 
entranced  by  it  as  a prodigy  of  constructive  work.  Verily,  wc  old 
men  will  have  to  hang  ourselves,  if  young  people  can  cut  their 
way  so  straight  and  with  such  apparent  case  through  such  great 
difficulties.  . . . 

Meanwhile,  after  the  summer  there  was  still  heavy  work  to  be 
done.  On  the  day  after  the  last  evidence  was  given  Keynes  had 
dinner  with  the  Chamberlains. 

J,  M.  Keynes  to  Mis,  Keynes^  20th  December  igi3 

The  Commission  is  very  nearly  finished  now,  and  most  of  the 
Report  is  in  its  final  form.  The  last  three  days  have  been  about  the 
most  exacting  to  character  and  intellect  that  I have  ever  been 
through  and  I feel  rather  a wreck,  — wishing  very  much  that  I was 


AET.  30]  FELLOW  OF  KING’S  169 

off  to  the  South  of  France  for  an  immediate  holiday.  We  sat  for 
seven  hours  a day,  and  one  had  to  be  drafting  amendments  at  top 
speed  and  perpetually  deciding  within  thirty  seconds  whether  other 
people’s  amendments  were  verbal  and  innocent  or  substantial  and  to 
be  rejected.  I must  say  that  Austen  came  out  of  the  ordeal  very  well, 
and  I believe  he  may  yet  be  Piime  Minister  - - I don’t  suppose  on 
the  purely  intellectual  score  that  he  is  any  stupider  than  Campbell- 
Bannerman.  . . . 

Before  Christinas  the  Commission  decided  that  only  two  more 
days  would  be  needed,  and  12th  and  13th  January  were  fixed. 
Keynes  went  off  after  Chiistmas  wi(h  Duncan  Giant  to  stay  at 
Roquebrune  on  the  Riviera. 

J,  AI.  Keynes  to  kl}s,  Keynes^  ^rd  January  1Q14 

Just  as  I <vas  to  start  yesterday  for  hf)me  f was  smitten  down  by  a 
somewhat  bad  attack  of  tonsilitis  - temperature  and  so  forth. 
I am  ])cing  ver)  kindly  nursed  by  Mis.  Rendel,  Madame  Bussy’s 
sistef.  To-day  1 had  a French  doctor  from  Mentoin*  who  descrilies 
it  as  a bad  “ quinsy  ” but  certainly  nothing  worse  «md  thinks  I may 
be  able  to  travel  in  five  days.  ...  I feel  very  miserable  but  the 
disease  is  going  its  normal  course.  It  is  particularly  annoying  becanw' 
1 am  missing  the  final  sittings  of  my  Commission. 

But  it  was  something  worse.  It  was  diphtheria.  He  was  sorely 
ill,  the  more  so  no  doubt  for  the  wrong  diagnosis  at  the  outset. 
The  truth  was  in  due  course  discovered,  he  was  given  the  anti- 
toxin and  removed  to  a nursing-home  at  Mentone.  Ilis  mother 
went  out  to  him.  It  was  a critical  moment. 

On  the  Agenda  for  12th/ 13th  January  were  certain  amend- 
ments over  the  names  ot'  R.  W.  Gillan  and  Keynes  for  making 
the  note-issue  more  elastic.  They  hoped,  even  without  a central 
bank,  to  introduce  a little  management  in  place  of  the  pure 
automatisms  of  the  existing  system.  The  proposals,  as  stated  by 
Gillan,  seemed  to  the  Commission  to  be  somewhat  obscure,  and 
too  complicated.  It  would  not  accept  them. 

Various  members  wrote  to  Keynes  expressing  sympathy  and 
regret  that  he  was  not  at  these  last  meetings.  His  guidance  had 
been  much  missed.  It  was  unfortunate  that  his  proposals  had  not 
been  accepted,  but  they  seemed  too  complicated.  Even  Gillan 
seemed  doubtful  in  the  face  of  the  arguments  of  the  other  side. 
There  evidently  was  a feeling  that  Keynes  would  be  distressed. 
He  wrote  to  enquire  if  there  could  not  be  another  meeting.  But 


170  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [iqm 

this  was  deemed  to  be  altogether  out  of  the  question.  The  members 
were  dispersed.  It  would  not  be  possible  to  get  more  than  two  or 
three  together.  Austen  Chamberlain  wrote  to  him  to  express  the 
hope  that  he  would  not  feel  obliged  to  add  a minute  of  dissent. 
After  all,  the  report  so  largely  embodied  his  views ; he  had  had 
great  success ; it  would  be  a pity  to  spoil  the  unanimity  ^^savc 
for  H.  Begbie,  who  wrote  a note  in  favour  of  a gold  currency), 
on  a comparatively  minor  point.  It  was  taken  for  granted  that 
Keynes  would  either  add  a note  of  dissent  or  acquiesce. 

But  that  was  not  his  way.  Gathering  together  what  remained 
of  his  strength  after  his  severe  illness,  he  penned  a note  of  such 
consummate  cogency  that,  despite  the  lack  of  another  meeting, 
Chamberlain  felt  it  necessary  to  authorise  various  changes. 

The  currency  reserve  rcfjuirements  were  exceedingly  compli- 
cated, relating  «is  they  did  to  more  than  one  reservp  1‘und,  and  it 
would  be  needless  to  ask  the  reader  to  re-(‘nter  the  old  ground  of 
debate.  None  the  less,  Keynes'  note  is  such  a good  early  example 
of  his  polemic  style  that  it  may  be  appropiiate  to  quote  an  extract 
from  it. 

I'he  Commission  have  retained  without  alteraRon  a preamble 
(enlarging  on  the  benefits  and  the  need  of  elasticity)  and  a summary 
of  advantages  to  be  (obtained  from  their  proposals  (paragiaph  114), 
which  were  written  for  (iuite  a difrereni  scheme.  With  tcTererice  to 
this  previous  scheme  these  passages  were  relevant  and  truthful ; hut 
w'ith  reference  to  the  new  scheme  they  are,  in  my  opinion,  neither  the 
oiu'  nor  the  other.  If  the  Commission  believe  that  the  disadvantages 
referred  to  in  paragraph  105  can  be  cured,  or  the  beiu'fits  and  (3) 
of  paragraph  1 1 [ can  be  (obtained,  at  any  rate  for  some  years  to 
come,  from  the  scheme  they  are  now  jccomnieiiding,  they  arc  un- 
questiona])ly  deceived.  If,  as  I presume,  they  only  accpiiesced  in  this 
scheme  in  the  belief  that  advant.ages  (2)  and  (3)  would  really^  a(  cruc 
from  it,  they  ought  to  reconsider  the  matter.  The  recommendations 
as  they  now  stand  are  of  a spurious  character.  They  toy  with  the  idea 
of  temporary  loan;,  even  suggest  to  the  ordinary  reader  that  they' 
encourage  them,  and  do  this  only  to  deceive.  I'liis  make-believe 
element  in  them  is  open,  I think,  to  criticism  of  an  exceedingly 
damaging  kind. 

He  proceeded  to  substantiate  his  case.  Chamberlain  could  not 
hold  out  against  this  sort  of  thing ! And  so  changes  were  made 
and  the  story  ended  happily. 

The  early  months  of  1914  were  now  beginning  to  slip  by. 
Keynes,  professing  to  be  well  although  not  fully  recovered,  was 


AEf  30] 


FLLLOW  OF  KING’S 


171 

back  at  his  heavy  duties  in  Cambridge  (which  he  had  had  to 
sustain  during  the  sittings  of  the  Commission  also).  What  was 
to  be  the  next  call  upon  his  powers  ^ 

His  contacts  with  his  old  friends  had  been  maintained.  Note 
must  be  taken  of  a more  recent  iiiend,  Lady  Ottoline  Morrell, 
niece  of  the  Duke  of  Portland.  She  had  a lovely  house,  Garsmgton 
Manor,  near  Oxford,  an  early  Tudor  stone  li outage  slooci  at 
the  end  of  banks  of  clipped  vew,  which  overtopped  the  house,  * 
beyond  were  descending  ten  aces,  a lectangulai  stone  pond  with 
baroque  sculptures  and  a wide  view  ol  southern  Oxlordshiie  It 
was  a small  house,  furnished  by  Ladv  Ottoline  with  excjuisite 
taste,  and  adorned  with  John  drawings  *ind  othei  choice  works 
It  was  a lasouiitc  haunt  of  the  talented  youth  f)f  Oxfoid  poets 
and  others  intciested  m all  things  aitistic  She  was  heiself  a lady 
ol  great  pieselicc,  tall,  with  a certain  aquiline  beauts,  her  face 
lieasilv  made  up,  not  always  skilfullv,  hci  clothes  stiiking,  not  ol 
the  peiiod  sometimes  a cimoline  and  a luge  straw  hat  with 
iibbons  She  was  seen  in  the  days  when  motors  had  entirely 
displaced  hoise-diawn  carnages  - driving  about  Oxford  next  her 
husband,  perched  high  on  a gig  She  spoke  with  a protracted 
drawl,  which  seemed  to  emerge  from  i far  remote  recess  of  nose 
or  throat  Behind  these  eccentricities  she  had  a certain  flair  for 
detecting  and  encouraging  early  genius  and  a quality  of  mind 
which  made  intelligent  men  ol  various  types  enjo>  conversation 
with  hei  It  w n t (uilv  the  clever  under giaduates  who  went 
to  Gaisington  I amous  poets  and  othei  distinguished  men  were 
constantlv  in  the  house.  Ihcs  fell  happy  thcic.  She  had  some 
ol  the  attiibutes  ol  thos«  great  I rench  ladies  who  conducted  a 
salon  Bci  tr  ind  Russell  was  a close  friend  It  is  even  hinted  that 
Lytton  Strachc)  may  have  had  some  loniantic  feeling  for  her. 
She  also  had  at  this  time  a house  in  Bedfoid  Square,  which  after- 
wards bec.imc  the  London  residence  of  the  Ascjuiths 

J.  M A own  lo  \In  hejnes,  jnd  July  iQi} 

lonight  1 am  to  go  to  a small  dinnei  party  at  lady  Ottoline 
Morrell’s  to  meet  the  Prime  Minister^  She  thinks  it  is  time  he 
bi  oke  out  in  a new  direction  and  is  asking  no  one  but  a few  of  my 
so-called  ‘ Bloomsbury  set ' ” Duncan  was  at  a party  at  Downing 
Street  last  night ' But  1 am  afraid  he  won’t  like  us  much 

* 1 h(  se  ha\ < sin<  c bt en  cut  down  lo  a low<  r level 
Mr  H II  \squith  Taft ciw aids  I ord  Oxfoid  and  \squith) 


CHAPTER  V 


BLOOMSBURY 

1 

ON  the  22nd  of  February  1904  Leslie  Stephen,  illustrious 
I Victorian  man  of  letters,  died,  leaving  four  children  by 
his  second  wife,  Thoby,  Adrian,  Vanessa  and  Virginia. 
Stephen’s  contributions  to  thought  and  literary  criticism  are 
adequately  recorded  in  history  and  lie  outside  our  purview.  We 
may  notice,  however,  that  early  in  life  he  had,  like  Sidgwick, 
resigned  his  tutorship  at  1 rinity  Hall,  Cambridge,  on  grounds  of 
religious  disbelief;  and  he  was  much  engaged  during  his ‘career 
in  championing  the  cause  of  agnosticism.  Althojigh  there  were 
many  eminent  agnostics  at  that  epoch,  none  the  less  the  mainten- 
ance of  one’s  position  as  such  appears  to  have  imposed  a certain 
strain.  We  have  seen  Maynard’s  impatience  with  Sidgwick’s 
lifelong  anxieties.  The  easy  eighteenth-century  scepticism  of  Hume 
and  Gibbon  seemed  no  longer  possible,  owing,  perhaps,  to  the 
waves  of  religious  revival  that  had  swept  over  England  from 
Wesley  onwards.  As  a counterweight  to  their  unorthodoxy,  the 
free-thinkers  seemed  to  need  to  build  up  defences ; if  one  was  an 
agnostic,  it  was  difficult  to  be  just  an  ordinary  simple  person  ; 
one  had  to  be  especially  high-minded  and  moral. 

Stephen  had  known  many  of  the  great  thinkers  of  the  Victorian 
age ; there  had  been  an  element  of  intellectual  excitement  and 
ferment.  Inevitably,  as  he  grew  older,  the  ferment  died  away, 
while  he  retained  his  position  as  an  eminent,  respect(?d  and  impor- 
tant philosophe.  Living  must  proceed ; the  movements  of  a Vic- 
torian household  were  somewhat  starched ; the  thrill  of  old 
battles  no  doubt  remained  in  Stephen’s  memories,  but  there  was 
not  much  in  what  still  went  on  in  his  house  to  provide  intellectual 
excitement  for  the  young  people.  The  great  men  were  dead, 
settled  in  the  country,  or  themselves  becoming  a little  starched. 

The  Stephen  boys  had  their  own  careers  and  friends,  but  what 
of  the  young  ladies  ? No  doubt  they  “ came  out  ” and  had  parties 

172 


ABT.  25-421  BLOOMSBURY  173 

and  balls,  but  these  may  not  have  been  more  interesting  than  the 
ordinary  round  of  conventional  Victorian  society.  Something  of 
the  atmosphere  of  this  home  is  represented  in  Virginia  Woolf's 
novel,  Night  and  Day. 

Stephen’s  second  wife,  mother  of  the  four  children,  predeceased 
him  by  nine  years.  So  there  fell  to  the  daughters  housekeeping 
duties,  which  may  have  been  sufficiently  onerous.  They  were 
then  entering  upon  their  twenties,  their  minds  alert  and  their 
imaginations  seeking  greater  scope.  Towards  the  end  Stephen 
became  very  deaf,  and  in  his  last  two  years  was  ill  with  cancer. 

When  he  died,  the  old  house,  22  Hyde  Park  Gate,  at  the  end 
of  a cul-de-sac  leading  from  Kensington  Gore,  was  given  up, 
and  the  four  young  people  set  up  house  at  46  Gordon  Squaie  (in 
which  I am  now  writing  these  pages).  Freedom  had  been  found. 
At  first  the  pattern  of  life  may  not  have  changed  very  much. 
Stephen’s  old  friends  found  their  way  to  the  new  establishment 
in  Bloomsbury.  Thoby  had  already  been  bringing  his  college 
friends  to  Hyde  Park  Gate,  and  their  visits  continued.  Gradually 
the  scene  began  to  change,  but  there  were  interruptions.  In  1905 
Virginia  had  one  of  those  periods  of  mental  sickness,  whose  later 
renewal  the  selfless  vigilance  of  her  husband  did  so  much  to  avert 
or  mitigate.  The  trouble  passed  away,  and  the  whole  family 
decided  in  1906  to  take  a holiday  in  Greece,  for  recovery  and 
enjoyment.  Life  revived  under  the  influent  c of  the  sun,  the 
beauties  of  Greece,  and  their  adventures. 

But,  alas,  the  shadow  fell  again.  Thoby  caught  typhoid  fever, 
from  which  he  did  not  recover.  Thoby ! Handsome,  gifted, 
winning,  idolised  by  a gioup  of  the  most  brilliant  youth  of  Cam- 
bridge, entirely  unspoilt,  taking  all  admiration  with  unselfcon- 
scious gracefulness,  a man  of  affairs,  one  who  might  make  a great 
mark  in  the  world.  He  would  have  been  in  touch  with  the  ideas 
of  his  clever  friends,  and  his  common  sense  and  balance  might 
have  carried*  them  forward  into  the  world  of  high  politics.  His 
name  deserves  to  be  remembered,  along  with  those  others  which 
appeared  on  a lengthening  list  eight  years  later,  as  one  who  might 
have  contributed  to  the  better  guidance  of  Britain’s  affairs.  Weep 
no  more,  ye  woeful  shepherds. 

Early  next  year  a pleasant  event  occurred,  in  the  marriage  of 
Vanessa  to  one  of  Thoby’s  best  friends  at  Trinity,  Mr.  Clive  Bell. 
The  married  couple  took  over  46  Gordon  Square,  while  Adrian 
and  Virginia  moved  to  29  Fitzroy  Square.  And  5o  now  there  were 


174  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [i0o«-25 

two  establishments.  Would  the  pulse  of  life  begin  to  quicken 
after  these  times  of  trouble  ? Clive  and  Vanessa  made  a resolution 
that  they  would  devote  themselves  solely  to  their  work,  Clive  to 
his  writing  and  Vanessa  to  her  painting.  Very  soon,  however, 
these  two  houses  became  focal  points  in  a grouping  of  talented 
people  who  were  to  play  a significant  part  in  the  cultural  develop- 
ment of  London  at  this  time. 

Chelsea  is  the  name  of  a London  postal  district.  It  also  has  a 
connotation.  Certain  famous  painters  have  had  their  studios  there, 
a multitude  of  art  students  have  lived  there,  and  been  seen  in  the 
streets  clad  unconventionally  in  a way  that  struck  spectators  more 
f orcibly  in  the  early  years  of  the  century  than  it  would  now.  'J’hus 
Chelsea  means  essentially  a place  of  art  and  of  art  students.  The 
annual  “ ('helsea  Arts  Ball  ” has  nation-wide  celebrity. 

Bloomsbury  also  had  a connotation,  but  this  was  of  a different 
kind.  For  a number  of  years,  if  one  used  the  word  “ Blooms- 
bury ”,  otherwise  than  as  a postal  address,  one  referred  to  a 
particular  group  of  people.  Lexicographers  may  have  their 
qualms.  The  question  turns  on  the  consequence  of  the  group 
and  on  how  wide  is  the  currency  of  the  designation  used  with 
specific  reference  to  it. 

The  difl'erence  between  Chelsea  and  Bloomsbury  was  that  the 
former  referred  to  general  qualities  while  the  latter  referred  to 
particular  people  and  through  them  to  their  point  of  view.  One 
could  live  in  the  middle  of  Bloomsbury  and  yet  say  that  one  was 
very  anti-Bloomsbuiy.^ 

Who  were  these  people?  In  this  matter  of  definition  an  ele- 
ment of  snobbery  may  enter  in.  Some  purists  who  refined  and 
refined  — “X  was  not  quite  Bloomsbury  because  he  lacked  one 
quality,  nor  Y because  he  lacked  another  ” --  and  who  excluded 

* 7’his  matter  is  of  some  importance  for  the  future  sturlent  ol  Keynes’  opinions. 
Recently  the  word  Bloomsbury  has  conic  to  be  used  in  a very  loose  sense,  quite  un- 
c-onnected  with  that  defined  in  the  text.  For  convenience  T will  tall  the  latter  its 
“ orija^iiial  ” sense.  It  has  been  used  for  ill-defined  groups  of  youne:  iniellectuals. 
'I’herc  is  danger  of  t onfusion,  because  this  secondary  use  would  not  have  arisen  but  for 
the  prior  existence  ol  the  “ original  ” Bloomsbury.  Ke\T»es  was  a member  of  the 
**  original  Bloomsbury,  and  is  rightly  belies  ed  to  have  shared  many  of  its  views. 
But  he  had  no  connection  with  this  secondary  Bloomsbury,  and  future  students  must 
l>eware  of  attributing  to  him  views  stated  in  current  literature  to  be  held  by  it.  I may 
cite  as  examples  a reference  on  page  28  of  Professor  jewkes’s  notable  book,  entitled 
Ordeal  by  Plannings  and  an  interesting  leading  article  in  The  Times  Literaty  Supplement  of 
17th  July  1948.  In  neither  case  can  I find  any  connection  between  the  views  and 
characteristics  described  as  belonging  to  Bloomsbury  and  those  of  the  “ original  ” 
Bloomsbtiry. 


AEI  2:,  4^]  BLOOMSBURY  175 

brothers,  sisters,  husbands,  wives,  might  1 educe  the  membership 
so  much  that  the  number  could  be  counted  upon  the  fingers  of 
one  hand  Taking  a more  generous  \iew,  taking  account  of  those 
who  weie  on  terms  of  close  intimacy  with  the  leading  members 
of  Bloomsbuiv  at  some  time  01  other  within  the  peiiod  from 
1907  to  1930  and  who  paitook  of  then  gcneial  way  of  life,  one 
might  reach  some  such  figure  as  twenty  or  thirty.  One  could 
certainly  cast  the  net  widei,  and  by  accepting  others  who  might 
not  have  been  intimate  friends,  but  who  acknowledged  the  leader- 
ship, were  in  some  respects  of  the  same  way  of  thinking,  and  spoke 
with  a “Bloomsbury  voice”,  one  could  leach  a much  larger 
number  Howcvei  the  argument  may  go,  no  one  could  deny 
that  the  Misses  Stephen  were  pait  of  the  ccntuil  core  of  Blooms- 
bury How  did  It  happen  thai  they  becann  >u(h  important 
liguies  in  an  intellectual  groups 

I lieu  may  have  been  c|uahlKs  which  came  by  heredity  and 
upbringing  There  was  Stephen’s  Irec-thinking  and  there  was 
the  distinguished  social  position  which  he  achieved  m the  \i(- 
toiian  period.  Thus  on  the  one  hand  theic  were  the  germs  of 
rebellion,  which  might  spiout  into  a new  kind  of  Irec-thinking  and 
a new  kind  of  intcllec  tual  ferment.  On  the  other  hand  there  were 
the  traditions  of  societv,  which  imply  ccitain  amenities  that  are 
necessary,  if  a circle  is  to  be  held  togethei  in  harinons,  howevci 
unconventional  and  Bohemian  that  circle  may  seek  to  b<' 

In  then  own  oersons,  thev  were  beautiful  and  clcvci  and  had 
also  a sense  of  Jun  and  liveliness  They  were  veiy  individual 
people,  with  complex  ch  nacters  which  it  was  a jileasure  to  then 
clever  men  fiicncls  to  urn  ivel  1 urtluimoic  they  had  a particular 
cjuality  whicli  difleicntiated  them  from  the  majority  of  their  sex 
and  was  essentnil  for  the  purpose  in  hand  intellectual  coolness. 
(One  need  not  imply  that  in  most  women  the  absence  of  this 
trait  is  a deficiency , this  turns  m the  function  they  aie  d^'stined 
to  perform  ) With  Virginia  and  Vanessa  all  the  subjects  under 
the  sun  could  be  equably  discussed,  all  opinicms,  however  out- 
rageous, quietly  assessed.  The  men  who  frequented  their  society 
knew  that  they  were  in  no  danger  of  hearing  those  rising,  strident 
tones  of  emotion  which  must  dcstioy  good  talk.  I hey  had  no 
tendency,  as  an  argument  took  this  turn  or  that,  to  read  into  its 
bearing  an  affront  to  their  class,  then  set,  their  sex,  or  themselves. 

Another  great  asset  was  that  there  were  two^ladies  with  these 
notable  attributes  , and,  already  bv  1907,  there  were  two  centres. 


176  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  (1908-25 

One  lady  may  by  her  outstanding  attainments  draw  around  her 
a circle  of  people ; that  is  a salon ; it  is  the  Hotel  de  Rambouillet. 
But  if  there  are  two  centres,  they  may  form  the  nucleus  of  a social 
group. 

It  may  be  thought  that  the  characteristics  enumerated  were 
not  enough  by  themselves.  English  society  contains  many  clever, 
level-headed,  witty  women,  who  are  good  talkers  and  good  friends, 
who  have  drawn  around  them  a circle  for  a time,  but  none  the 
less  have  not  gone  so  far  as  to  become  the  centre  of  an  interesting 
community,  have  lost  their  friends  with  the  passage  of  the  years, 
are  known  to  be  interesting  and  delightful  people,  but  in  the  long 
run  become  more  or  less  isolated  figures,  seeing  their  friends 
occasionally  and  giving  pleasure,  but  living  rather  lonely  lives. 
Were  the  qualities  that  1 have  mentioned  sufficient  ingredients 
for  the  Cl  cation  of  a social  nucleus? 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  there  was  a third  leading  figure, 
who  lived  at  home,  with  no  independent  estalilishment  in  London, 
one  with  ticmcndous  resources  of  inner  vitality,  with  a pbint  of 
view  to  assert,  with  absuid  mockery  always  lurking  and  awaiting 
its  moment,  with  a zest  for  life  and  friendship,  exclusive  in  the 
highest  degree,  cruelly  crushing  to  alien  intruders,  galvanic, 
tcmperainentdl,  dominating,  even  terrific.  Thi^  was  Lytton 
Strachey.  By  a most  happy  harmony  the  Misses  Stephen  and 
Lytton  Strachey,  whose  families  had  been  on  cordial  terms  and 
had  had  common  friends  among  distinguished  Victorians, ^ found 
themselves  in  gi eat  sympathy^  on  many  matters  of  discourse, 
serious  or  gay.  Between  them,  these  three  sufficed  to  make  the 
coterie. 

It  was  a piece  of  the  greatest  good  luck  for  Strachey.  We  have 
seen  how  much  “ the  Society  ” and  his  group  of  Trinity  friends 
meant  to  him  at  Cambridge,  and  how  he  tended  to  remain  there 
after  his  proper  period.  These  friends  had  lived  together,  pooling 
their  ideas,  impressions  and  experiences,  building  up  a community 
of  taste  and  of  philosophy,  and  sharing  their  private  jokes,  whose 
meaning  depended  on  their  common  experiences.  It  is  very  rare 
for  such  groups,  formed  at  a University,  to  hold  together.  There 
some  young  men  may  seem  to  themselves  to  have  constructed, 
out  of  the  views  they  share  on  life  and  on  art  and  out  of  their 

* Lady  Ritchie,  a daughter  ol  'Ihackcray  (Aunt  Annie),  was  Stephen’s  sister-in- 
law  by  his  first  marriage.  She  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Lady  Strachey,  and  James's 
godmother. 


AET  25-42] 


BLOOMSBURY 


177 

common  idioms  and  interpretations,  durable,  spiritual  habitations, 
in  which  they  will  be  able  to  meet  together  for  the  rest  of  their 
days.  They  are  but  summer-houses,  destined  to  be  deserted  and 
to  fall  into  rapid  disrepair.  The  man,  when  he  has  to  lace  the 
battle  of  life,  usually  finds  that  he  has  to  advance  alone.  He  is 
always  tending  to  fall  away  Ironi  his  liiends,  to  be  pushed  about 
hither  and  thither,  moving  in  and  out  of  diffeient  (ircles,  in 
accordance  with  his  shifting  inteiests  and  fortune.  Then,  if  he 
marries,  it  is  the  wile  who  build-j  anew  lor  him,  decides  what  is 
to  be  done,  who  is  to  be  seen  and  what  the  pattern  of  life  is  to  be. 
He  may  pay  a visit  to  his  old  college,  he  mas  attc  iid  an  annual 
reunion  of  his  liicnds,  icviving  the  old  anecdotes,  uheaising  the 
old  jokes,  living  in  the  old  atmosphere  lor  a pleasant  c veiling ; 
but  it  is  all  a meie  echo ; the  ne^t  dav's  work  will  go  forward  as 
usual. 

With  liytton  it  was  to  be  different.  In  Vanessa  and  Virginia 
he  found  two  women  who  were  Apostles  to  the  fingei-tips  - no 
less  so. lor  having  had  no  univcisitv  education.  With  their  aid 
the  old  summer-houses  could  be  kept  in  being,  and  enlaiged  into 
gieat  mansions,  into  palaces.  The  old  thoughts  could  continue 
to  flow,  the  new  impiessions  be  shared  and  the  jokes  kc*pt  green 
and  living. 

To  these  wc  must  add  Duncan  Giant.  He  was  an  niipoitant 
element.  It  may  well  be  that  he  was  a mce^saiy  element,  not 
only  on  account  of  those  qualities  which  had  made  him  so 
much  bc'loved,  out  on  account  of  his  stcadv  mtcdliguice  and 
balanced  judgment.  After  all,  Stiache)  often  let  his  inicigiiiation 
run  awav  with  him,  ad  pting  extreme  and  untenable  petitions. 
Duncan  Grant  had  the  brains  to  under sMnd  him,  but  could 
maintain  his  own  view.  He  had  the  painter’s  intelligence,  which 
has  a peculiar  cpialit^  of  Icvel-headedncss.  Foi  an  imaginative 
writer,  a new  idea,  albeit  furidamciitally  unsound  and  in  fact  false, 
may  none  the  less  ha\e  some  ii.gredient  which  will  be  an  indis- 
pensable aid  to  the  woik  of  creation,  h’or  the  time  being  and 
provisionally,  he  must  cling  to  it,  and  assert  it.  But  the  painter 
creates  with  his  brush.  In  the  woild  of  ideas  he  has  no  axe  to 
grind.  And  he  can  thus  preseivc  his  balance. 

With  these  aids  Strachey  was  to  be  able  to  keep  his  community 
alive.  It  was  by  a further  piece  of  good  fortune  that  the  two 
young  ladies  elected  to  marry  two  of  hi^  intimate  friends  from 
Trinity.  We  have  seen  already  Vanessa  marryiitg  Mr.  Clive  Bell. 

N 


178  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

Six  years  later  Virginia  married  Mr.  Leonard  Woolf,  after  his 
return  from  Ceylon.  Thus  the  Trinity  party  was  kept  together, 
gaining  strength  from  its  new  adherents. 

When  Maynard  returned  to  Cambridge  he  retained  a London 
pied-d‘ierre  in  Belgravc  Road ; a year  later  he  took  rooms  in 
Fitzroy  Square  with  Duncan  Grant.  In  191 1 he  made  a change, 
taking  a share  in  a house  at  38  Brunswick  Square,  his  fellow- 
tenants  being  Adrian  and  Virginia  Stephen,  Duncan  Grant  and, 
on  his  return  from  Ceylon,  Leonard  Woolf.  (When  Leonard  and 
Virginia  married  in  1913  they  went  oft' to  Clifford’s  Inn.)  The 
act  of  leaving  London  for  Cambridge  made  the  whole  question 
of  London  much  more  important  to  Maynard.  When  residing 
there  he  had  been  busy  at  the  office  and  with  his  pen  ; the  whole 
future  lay  before  him.  But  when  the  future  lay  in  Cambridge, 
he  had  to  be  careful  not  to  let  his  connections  with  London  decay. 
In  due  course,  sharing  houses,  sometimes  here,  sometimes  there, 
he  became  a member  of  the  Bloomsbury  family.  He  lived  as  a 
bachelor  in  college  for  part  of  the  time  ; but  Bloomsbury  was  in  a 
very  real  sense  his  home,  providing  the  feminine  interest  and  the 
human  interest  which  were  the  background  of  flis  daily  work. 

I’he  question  has  been  raised  whether  he  c*ni  be  considered 
as  part  of  the  innermost  circle  <>1  Bloomsbury.  Some  high  authori- 
ties would  like  to  raise  a doubt  and  stress  certain  differences. 
There  were  inevitably  certain  differences.  Most  of  the  others  were 
devoting  tlieir  lives  to  wTiting  or  to  some  form  of  artistic  endeavour. 
Maynard  was  <i  don ; his  w^ork  in  economics  wms  more  in  the 
nature  of  science  than  of  literature ; in  due  course  he  became  a 
man  of  business ; and  in  part  of  the  period  h('  was  in  j>ublic  life. 
'Lhc  nature  of  the  inlluence  he  strove  to  exert  implied  a difference 
in  outlook.  His  friends  sought  to  influence  the  world  — in  so  far 
as  they  could  be  said  to  do  that  at  all  — through  the  perfection 
of  their  artistic  achievement.  He  sought  to  exert  a more  direct 
influence,  namely  by  persuasion  and  personal  intervention.  Thus 
his  life  was  bound  to  be  more  littered  up  with  the  transaction  of 
business  and  he  had  at  times  fairly  close  contacts  with  the  great, 
whom  Bloomsbury  despised.  In  no  other  way  could  he  have 
achieved  his  object. 

What  is  so  remarkable  is  that,  despite  the  pressure  of  worldly 
interests  which  were  the  interests  inherent  in  his  profession,  he 
preserved  his  inner  self  so  untainted  that  he  was  always  welcomed 
by  the  Bloomsbury  friends  as  one  of  themselves.  They  felt  that 


AET  25  42] 


BLOOMSBURY 


179 


at  heart  he  was  their  unq  ualified  supporter.  And  so  indeed  he  was. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  in  his  own  mind  he  believed  that  the  work 
and  the  personalities  of  these  friends  mattcicd  more  than  the 
eminent  and  famous  persons  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  It 
was  the  fnends  who  provided  him  with  the  specific  ima^e  of  what 
IS  meant  bv  the  idea  of  a good  life  And  it  wa  then  t»oo(l  opinion 
of  him  that  he  \ allied  most 

It  must  not  be  supposed  th  xt  there  was  a sclt-(  ons(  lous  attempt 
to  form  a group  or  that  its  mcinbcis  wished  to  be  known  by  a 
collective  name.  Ihe  gioup  giew  up  naturally  and  spontaneously 
In  the  early  da>s  there  weie  a nuinbci  of  young  people,  who  were 
on  friendl\  Uims  with  the  others,  some  of  tin  sc  excntuady 
dnfted  away,  and  new  fnends  wcic  added  It  tuinecl  out  that 
a ceitain  nuniliei  desired  to  remain  intim  lU  and  maintained 
continuous  contnet  foi  a long  period  With  the  pissige  of  v ears 
these  fiiendships  became  dcep-iootcd  lo  the  emotion il  sym- 
pathy, which  IS  piesent  it  the  inception  of  a deep  friendship, 
there  nvas  added  something  Uss  usinl,  nimcly,  the  growing 
familiarity  ol  d Ally  intCK  ourse  so  that  the  fnends  bi came  almost 
a family  or  clan. 

What  weic  theleidmg  cliai  uUnstics  oJ  this  gioup^  It  would 
be  beyond  the  scope  ol  tins  volume  to  attempt  a lull  analysis 
I lure  is  no  authontitive  iccoul  and  it  is  to  be  fiaud  that  there 
may  nc\er  be  one,  the  student  of  this  episode  m the  lusloiv  of 
Bntish  (ultinc  will  havr  to  gk  in  his  inlonn  ition  fiom  bits  and 
pieces  A lew  fragnn  ntar>  notes  must  sufTu  e 111  this  plac  ( 1 hc\ 

are  necc^siry,  sinie  what  so  filled  the  mind  of  Kevnes  and 
furnished  forth  his  idea  f the  find  of  society  which  it  was  the 
economists  t isk  to  make  possible  must  lx  ol  icle\  incc  lo  his 
history  and  to  Ins  economies 

As  philosophic  d bukground,  Cr  L Mooic  s theories  were 
translated  from  Cimbndge  to  I melon  iiid  bee  uiu  dt  u^ueui  in 
Bloomsbury  • Ilu  upieme  \ dues  Oj  hie  were  the  st  ites  of  con- 
seiou  lies''  in\ol\ed  in  hu  iian  iclitions  and  in  the  ippteciation 
of  beautv  In  a ccrtnii  sense  it  m iv  be  s nd  that  Bloomsbury 
was  a prolongation  in  London  of  that  phise  in  the  life  of  “ the 
Societv  ’ which  was  leadied  in  the  years  immediateh  following 
iqoo 

At  Cambridge  Straehey  had  Ixid  an  emphasis  unusual  at  a 
university,  on  the  impoitanee  of  the  visual  aits,  in  this  ably 
supported  by  Clive  Bdl.  Thr  doctrine  renlained  a central 


i8o  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908^25 

one.  Maynard  was  infected  by  the  enthusiasm,  and,  in  due  course, 
became  a buyer  of  pictures  as  well  as  books.  His  flair  for  the 
subject  is  testified  by  the  value  of  his  collection  of  modern  pictures 
(;C30,ooo  at  his  death),  which  he  bought,  for  the  most  part,  at 
very  modest  prices.  Some  hold,  perhaps  correctly,  that  his 
success  in  this  field  was  due  to  some  uncanny  extension  of  his 
intellectual  power  into  the  woild  of  aesthetics,  and  that  he  was 
never  deeply  moved  by  visual,  as  he  undoubtedly  was  by  literary, 
beauty.  Strachey,  indeed,  is  said  to  have  remarked  when  in  a 
peevish  mood,  “ What  irritates  me  so  about  Pozzo  * is  that  he 
has  no  aesthetic  sense  Whatever  may  be  the  true  view  about 
his  independent  ae-sthctic  judgment,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
shared  the  sentiment  that  the  painter  and  the  sculptor  should  be 
the  most  highly  lionoured  among  men.  It  must  be  mentioned  that 
Roger  Fry  was  liom  early  da\s  a great  friend. 

Much  h,rd  been  done,  before  Bloomsbury,  to  redeem  Faiglish 
society  from  the  deep  phlh^tinism  of  the  inid-Victonan  jieiiod. 
Indeed  movement  succeeded  nio\ement.  Bloomsbui)r  ih  turn 
made  its  contribution,  not.ibl)  at  the  period  of  the  first  French 
post-Impressionisl  Exhibition  in  Londenr,  towards  the  wider 
education  of  public  opinion.  ^Ve  shall  see  that  later  in  his  life 
Maynard  endeiivoured  to  cairv  this  c^duc  ation  further,  by  devising 
practical  arrangements  for  making  modern  work  better  known  to 
the  general  jniblic . 

Then  there  was  the  other  ultimate  good  defined  l>v  G.  E. 
Moore,  the  good  to  be  found  11^  personal  rc'latioiis.  'I  his  raises 
wide  questions.  Conclusions  might  be  reached  whic  h disturbed  age- 
Cild  moral  < on\  entions  and  c odes,  I .eshe  Stephen  i aised  the  l:)tinner 
of  agnoslieism  concerning  the  date  of  the  creation  of  the  world. 
If  the  Misses  Stephen  disregardt'd  established  codes  of  e\erydav 
behaviour,  this  would  be  a revolution  even  more  significant  for 
ordinary  people.  They  too  would  become  pioneers  in  their  day, 
no  longer  the  daughters  of  the  veteran  rebel,  goiiig  to  conven- 
tional dances,  but  rc'bcls  on  their  owm  account,  leaders  in  a new 
movement  for  emancipation. 

It  mav  well  be  said  that  Bloomsbury  was  but  an  eddy  in  a 
mighty  stream  carrying  world-wide  opinion  far  from  the  tenets 


* For  manv  >ears  in  Bloomsbuiy  Keynes  was  familiarlv  known  by  the  name  P0770, 
having  been  bO  christcn<d  by  btrache\  after  the  Corsican  diplomat,  Pozzo  di  Borgo 
— not  a diplomat  of  <^\il  moti\e  or  b«sc  conduct,  but  certainly  a schemer  and  man  of 
many  facets. 


AET  25-42]  BLOOMSBURY  181 

of  the  Victorian  era.  None  the  less  it  had  its  specific  character- 
istics. The  first  answer  of  many,  in  reply  to  the  question  who  in 
England  had  been  most  responsible  foi  a change  of  sentiment  in 
these  matters,  would  be  Mr.  Geoige  Bernard  Shaw.  There  is, 
howevei,  considerable  dilleronce  between  his  tone  and  temper 
on  these  subjects  and  that  of  BlcKnnsbui>.  1 he  lessons  to  which 
the  writings  of  Shaw  appeared  - to  the  \ oung  in  the  catly  years  of 
this  century  to  point  were  that  the  \Ktoiian  codes  weie  haish 
and  brutal  and  replete  with  hvpoc  risy,  and  that,  if  w « brushed  those 
cobwebs  awa\,  natural  instinct,  which  was  sound  and  healthy, 
could  be  trusted  to  secuie  the  right  aiiaiigements.  Shav\  m this, 
as  111  other  matters,  seems  to  suggc'st  tliat  the  final  answer  to  these 
vexed  questions  is  ically  simple  and  under  c in  noses.  It  nily 
we  would  all  think  with  the  clarity  and  boldness  with  which  he 
seems  to  write, • out  allaiis  would  fall  into  proper  sh  ipe 

Blooinsburv  coichally  agreed  that  the  Vic  ton  in  codes  were 
harsh  and  lirutal  and  replete  with  hypcxti^^S,  ind  that  the 
cobwebs  must  be  biiishc'd  away.  But  the  answei  did  not  scenn 
so  simple  ^Vhcll  one  examines  with  intcgntv  and  disinterested- 
ness the  phenomenon  o(  Icwe,  taling  Nature  as  we  actually  finil 
her,  we  shall  disccnei  man)  cuiious  and  unexpected  dc\iations, 
many  twists  and  qunks.  Natinc  must  be  examined  fearlessly, 
without  piejudue  01  inhibition.  I he  hninan  heait  will  be  found 
to  ha\c  many  strange  complexities.  Blooni'^biiry  would  not 
presume  to  tlnnf  that  the  problems  weie  simple  or  that  the  solu- 
tions could  be  wiittcn  into  a modern  text-book.  Rathci  they 
felt  that  thev  weie  on  the  eve  of  a great  awakening.  But  much 
would  have  to  be  thought,  much  tried  much  experienced,  before 
we  should  undcistand  how  to  arrange  aflairs  so  that  human 
relations  could  be  harmonious  and  happy,  and  fulfil  Mooic's  ideal 
of  the  good. 

The  debate  which  procc'eded  in  +his  societv,  over  the  years, 
covered  manymatteis  whK  h it  was  unusual  at  that  time  for  women 
to  discuss,  matters  that  are  dealt  with  in  treatises  on  psycho- 
analysis. They  were  not  discussed  in  the  language  of  the  clinic, 
but  in  the  language  of  humanity  and  chanty.  Science  might 
take  many  age  s before  it  reached  precise  conclusions  or  formulated 
them  in  an  intelligible  way.  Meanwhile  these  weie  human 
problems,  demanding  an  answer  if  we  were  to  advance  to  a better 
way  of  life.  They  were  discussed  in  a spirit  of  humanity  and 
charity,  but  also,  when  the  occasion  was  suitable,  in  one  of  levity 


i82  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

and  frivolity.  This  was  a very  important  point.  In  problems 
concerning  sexual  impulses,  whether  straightforward  or  abnormal, 
one  was  not  likely  to  reach  a sane  and  balanced  judgment  if 
the  discussion  was  always  in  hushed  tones  and  with  solemn  faces. 
What  this  subject  needed,  above  all  others,  was  far  greater  frankness 
and  sincerity.  And  if  the  ice  was  really  to  be  broken,  laughter 
and  jest  must  be  introduced  into  the  consideration  of  the  matter. 
In  politics  or  business  it  would  be  olwious  enough  that  one  could 
not  achieve  a realistic  view  of  what  was  happening  if  one  was 
debarred  from  discussing  principles  or  acts  save  in  terms  of  re- 
spectful solemnity.  Fun  and  ridicule  must  be  allowed  to  jday  their 
part  in  the  analysis  of  the  moiives  or  characters  or  doings  of  the 
principal  actors;  otherwise  political  discussion  would  remain  at 
an  unrealistic  level,  and  those  who  discussed  them  would  have  a 
sense  of  servitude.  And  so  in  these  questions  of  sex. 

At  that  time  there  were  many  who  were  shocked  at  these 
proceedings.  But  in  this  lualter  of  being  shocked  it  is  expedient 
to  demand  the  credentials  of'  those  who  are  shocked  and  df  tho!,e 
at  whom  they  arc  shocked.  I suggest  that  thcfc  did  not  exist  in 
England  at  that  time  any  persons  who  had  a moral  claim  to  be 
shocked  at  tlie  discussions  in  which  these  ladies  thought  fit  to 
engage.  Since  this  is  but  an  opinion,  ii  is  proper  to  bring  as 
evidence  to  the  court  of  posterity  the  writings  of  Virginia  Woolf. 
These  contain  passages  showing  the  finest  delicacy  and  sensitivity, 
deep  psyc  hology,  great  humanity.  I suggest  that  the  opposition 
will  not  be  able  to  bring  forward  contemporary  writings  of  greater 
spiritual  quality,  whether  from  pens  of  reverend  persons,  pro- 
fessors, philosophers  or  any  other  class  of  society,  which  would 
entitle  their  authors  to  censure  the  conversation  of  the  author  oi' 
The  Waves ; and  what  applies  to  Virginia  applies  to  her  sister  also. 

It  may  be  that  these  controveisics  are  dead  and  done  with 
now,  and  that  all  these  problems  are  freely  and  openly  discussed, 
save,  perhaps,  in  some  very  restricted  circles.  Has  the  Bloomsbury 
point  of  view  in  fact  triumphed  ? The  matter  is  not  so  certain. 
It  may  be  that  in  the  last  resort  what  is  important  is  not  merely 
that  certain  matters  shall  be  discussed  fearlessly,  but  also  the 
quality  of  mind  and  intention  that  is  brought  to  the  discussion, 
the  high  elevation  of  Moore,  or  the  great  tradition  of  “ the 
Society  Has  true  emancipation  even  triumphed  in  what  might 
be  called  “highbrow'*  circles?  One  may  go  to  a party  of  a 
younger  generation  in  London.  On  the  walls  arc  pictures  by 


AET.  25-42]  BLOOMSBURY  183 

Duncan  Grant,  Matisse,  Chagall,  on  the  tables  books  from  the 
press  embodying  the  current  creative  effort.  The  setting  seems 
similar.  And  what  of  the  conversation  ? Yes ; these  problems  of 
human  relations  are  being  discussed  in  a spirit  of  frankness ; the 
Blomsbury  emancipation  has  held  its  ground.  But  listen  again. 
What  is  being  said  sounds,  surely,  veiy  ciude  and  callow.  Surely 
one  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  say  such  things  in  public.  One 
may  imagine  at  this  p«irty  a young  man  fresh  fiom  si  hool,  mature 
beyond  his  years,  with  his  secret  experienc  es  and  visions.  He  may 
resolve  that  when  he  goes  to  Cambridge,  or  it  may  be  to  Oxford, 
he  will  found  a society  who^e  main  piinciple  shall  be  that  the 
tender  and  delicate  affairs  of  the  heait  shall  only  be  allowed,  by  a 
strict  convention,  to  be  discussed  with  a sole  confidant,  and  that 
all  this  crude  gossip  and  unfeeling  comment  should  be  most 
strictly  ostiacised.  If  such  a man  got,  Straclu  y-wise,  astride 
public  opinion  in  the  university,  and  later  in  a wider  circle,  the 
wheel  might  come  full  c iiclc  bac k to  the  Vit  toiian  conventions.  . . . 
The  situation  is  peilnips  not  quite  so  pailous.  The  steady  pi  ogress 
of  professional  psycliolog^  is  a safeguaicl. 

But  thcie  IS  another  point  that  strikes  us  when  we 
whethei  the  humanising  influence  oi  the  Bloomsbury  ccMeiie  is 
being  more  widely  diflusc'd  in  oui  societ\.  It  ciuumstances  rivet 
the  attention  of  thinking  people  upon  the  problems  of  Hitler, 
atomic  waifaie  or  the  Police  Stale,  will  they  find  a lesidue  ol 
intellectual  enei  ’y  diiect  towards  the  piobhms  ol  personal 
relationships  Do  not  these  aqniations  icquirc  those  old  pre 
suppositions  of  H arvey  Road  — a 'stable  Bril ish  Empii  e and  as'  ured 
material  piogre>.s?  Ma^  \ve  have  to  face  a period  in  whicli  civil- 
isation slips  l)<ick  for  a while,  and  the  deepei  human  questions 
which  intoxic iUed  the  mind  of  young  Bloomsbu»'y  are  neglected 
Yet  in  the  long  run  that  peiiod  too  will  pass.  It  is  a misfortUiie 
that  the  thoughts  of  these  friends  have  not  hotu  better  iccorded 
for  the  consideiation  of  coming  generations. 

Bloomsbury  was  something  moic  than  a discussion  group, 
conducting  its  deliberations  over  a number  ol  years.  It  also  set 
out  to  achieve  a way  of  life.  The  Cambridge  ideals  of  unworldli- 
ness, pursuit  of  truth  and  other  absolute  values,  were  carried 
forward,  and  the  group  of  friends  attempted,  in  ways  admittedly 
imperfect,  to  pursue  them.  In  the  past,  idealists  have  gone  forth 
to  outlandish  places  to  establish  communities  based  on  the 
principles  of  Robert  Owen,  Fourier,  etc.  Here  was  a village 


j84  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

community,  living  in  our  midst,  using  the  same  shops,  post-offices, 
omnibuses  as  other  people.  It  was  sustained,  no  doubt,  by  certain 
elements  of  unearned  income,  and  Maynard’s  un-Apostolic  activi- 
ties in  financial  speculation  often  led  to  his  purchase  of  an  object 
of  visual  art  at  a convenient  moment.  Bloomsbury  would  not 
presume  to  be  proud  of  this  achievement  and  was  conscious  of 
its  own  imperfections  as  well  as  those  of  the  wider  society  within 
which  it  lived.  Despite  all  these  imperfections,  it  remained  an 
experiment  very  sincere  in  its  intentions,  which  is  worthy  of  study 
as  an  episode  in  the  history  of  culture. 

The  Waves  gives  a picture  of  certain  elements  of  Bloomsbury. 
It  is  also  coloured  by  the  very  individual  personality  of  the  author- 
ess ; and  it  is  suffused  with  a certain  melancholy.  Bloomsbury 
consisted  of  sensitive  people,  who  had  their  fair  share  of  sadness 
and  distress.  But  in  its  social  aspect  the  keynote  of  Bloomsbury^ 
was  its  perpetual  gaiety.  How  could  it  be  otherwise,  with  Lytton 
Strachey  setting  the  pace?  Maynard’s  sparkling  spirits  zyid  his 
impishness  made  their  contribution.  He  might  go  forth  into  the 
grave  world  of  high  finance  and  politics ; l)ut  ♦le  came  back  full 
of  stories  of  how  ludicrously  and  comically  people  were  behaving, 
often  parodying  them,  and  exaggerating  shamelessly.  And  the 
others  too,  plying  their  daily  affairs,  returned  to  the  fold  full  of 
absurd  anecdotes.  If  one  listened  to  Bloomsbury  conversation, 
one  envied  these  people  for  finding  in  the  course  of  what  might 
seem  to  be  a dull  day's  wwk  so  many  incidents,  which  were 
fantastic  in  the  telling.  Why  was  one’s  own  life  not  filled  with 
diverting  interludes  of  this  kind?  They  had  the  seeing  eye. 
Furthermore,  if  one  rejects  the  presuppositions  upon  which 
ordinary  people  talk  and  act,  and  puts  in  their  place  other,  per- 
haps justcr,  presuppositions,  that  serves  to  make  ordinary  sayings 
and  doings  seem  highly  ridiculous.  It  was  impossible  to  be  bored 
for  a moment  in  Bloomsbury  society.  Each  utterance  was  pointed. 

The  Bloomsbury  voice  was  a distinct  contribution.  It  was 
based  on  Lytton  Strachey’s,  consisting  not  so  much  in  a special 
pronunciation  of  words  as  in  the  cadences  of  sentences.  These 
cadences  could  be  used  to  express  implications,  additional  to  the 
formal  meaning  of  the  sentences.  Many  distinguished  persons 
adopted  these  mannerisms,  probably  without  knowing  it.  They 
were  infectious.  Maynard  alone,  among  the  men  in  the  inner 
circle,  was  altogether  immune;  his  soft,  distinctive  manner  of 
speech  remained  unchanged  from  early  years. 


AFT  25-4^]  BLOOMSBURY  185 

The  voice  was  emphatic,  but  rc'^trained  Certain  syllables, 
or  even  letters,  were  rather  strongly  stressed,  but  not  at  all  in 
the  manner  of  a drawl.  The  piesupposition  ot  the  cadence  was 
that  everything  one  said  matteud  Emphasis  had  to  be  applied 
In  a subtle  way  this  maintained  the  standard  ot  conversation. 
For  if  one  was  on  the  veigc  of  uttering  something  silly  or  flat, 
one  perceived  in  advance  tint  it  would  not  hear  the  emphasis 
that  the  Bloomsbury  maunei  icciuind,  and  so  it  would  be  lett 
unsaid,  to  the  benefit  of  all 

The  cadence  was  a liuk  by  which  one  tcmld  produce  v nous 
effects  A favouiite  word  wis  ‘ leillv”  In  oidmarv  speech 
the  stress  is  on  the  first  two  vowels  In  Blooinsburs  speech  it  tell 
upon  the  ll’s,  which  were  1 oiled  lu\uiiousl\  and  followed  by  a 
sharp  diminuendo  A strange i might  ultci  a b oimclc  “ Rcallv  ’ 
— with  greil  interest  and  suiprise  Ihe  stiingci  tell  flattered 
at  the  inteiest  tiken  The  c clever  people  evidcnth  nud  special 
attention  to  everything  that  was  said  It  was  nice  to  have  this 
considerate  leception  AlUi  all,  whit  he  bad  siid  hid  not  been 
so  partuulaih  interesting  But  whv  the  suiprise'*  Surely  his 
remark  had  t\pre‘^sed  quite  a coinmempl  icc  tiuth  lls  truth  eeiuld 
not  presumably  be  questioned  But  wait  Could  it  lie^  Wa^  it 
conceivable  thit  these  clever  people  look  a chficient  view  ^ Was 
It  really  truc^  I hen  an  abyss  would  open  Pausing  to  leflcct, 
he  realised  that  this  old  truism  vs  as  in  lact  1 pic  cc  o^  consummate 
balderdash  K ha  1 been  hoiribl)  ciuslicd  by  one  word 

Another  trick  could  be  jdiycd  with  this  ‘ icilly  ” A philis- 
tine might  sav  that  “liked’  ‘ was  loud  of”,  01  'was 
devoted  to  ” Y,  meanir  5 little  more  than  that  if  X and  \ were 
placed  next  to  one  another  it  a diiiner-p  irlv , the)  would  get  on 
very  well  together  He  was  eonhonted  with  ‘ Reilly’  , spoken 
again  with  great  interest  and  surprise,  the  implication  being  that 
his  harmless  words  rc fericd  to  a s«  andalous  muigue  c^r  to  a desper- 
ate and  forlorn  love  There  weie  two  distinct  “ reallvs  ” in  this 
connection  , one  with  a rising  note  on  the  ‘ .ill  ”,  suggested 
that  it  was  delightful  news  that  a friend  should  be  involved  in 
this  happy  affair , the  other,  with  a diminuendo  on  the  . all  ’, 
suggested  disgust  This  might  be  a mere  tease  Or  it  might  be  a 
joke,  if  the  idea  of  these  two  people  being  m love  with  one  another 
was  particularly  incongruous  Or  there  might  be  a more  subtle 
implication.  Bloomsbury  was  deeply  mtcrcstod  in  all  questions 
of  love  and  wished  to  make  it  plain  that  in  their  view,  if  one  could 


i86  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

apply  such  a word  as  “ devotion  ” to  X’s  attitude  towards  Y, 
that  was  a matter  which  must  be  taken  seriously  and  had  weighty 
implications.  They  were  determined  to  maintain  a heightened 
interest  in  human  beings,  and  sustain  an  activc-mindcd  comment- 
ary ; they  were  not  content  to  have  dry,  colourless  words  applied 
to  the  motions  of  the  heart ; if  people  were  so  dull  as  to  have  no 
deep  feelings,  then  at  least  these  should  be  attributed  to  them. 


2 

Some  reference  should  be  made  to  the  achievements  of  the 
group.  One  may  cite  examples,  Avithout  claiming  to  provide  an 
exhaustive  list.  Although  Keynes  drew  spiritual  sustenance  from 
these  friends,  the  main  part  of  his  work  has,  of  course,  quite 
different  sources  of  inspiration.  There  are  occasicmal  traces  of 
Bloomsbury  influence  in  points  of  style  and  illustration.  Monsieur 
fitienne  Mantoux,  whose  criticism  of  Keynes  will  be  discussed  in  the 
proper  place,  accuses  him  of  dragging  into  his  Economic  Consequences 
of  the  Peace  (1919)  a mention  c^f  Freud  in  ordoj'  to  titillate  the 
reader  by  this  refer  ence  to  a recent  finding  of  psychology.  The 
criticism  is  extremely  wide  of  the  mark.  The  kind  of  analysis 
which  Keynes  gives  of  President  Wilson’s  character  had  been 
common  ibrm  in  his  discussions  with  his  friends  for  more  than  a 
dozen  years.  Of  greater  importance  was  his  persistent  tendency 
to  ridicule  those  in  authority.  This  was  in  pait  a native  strain, 
but  we  may  believe  that  it  was  enrouiagcd—  some  may  think 
unduly  — by  the  persistently  mocking  vein  of  th(jse  among  whom 
he  spent  his  happiest  hours.  And  then  there  was  that  vision  of 
the  good  life,  which  animated  his  endeavours,  of  which  his  readers 
catch  glimpses  all  through  his  works. 

The  achievements  of  those  whose  names  I have  mentioned  arc 
well  known  — Lytton  Strachey,  Virginia  Woolf,  Vanessa  Bell, 
Duncan  Grant,  Clive  Bell,  Leonard  Woolf,  Roger  Fry.  To  these 
we  must  add  E.  M.  Forster  and  David  (Bunny)  Garnett.  The 
latter  was  younger  than  the  others ; he  became  an  intimate  and 
devoted  friend  of  them  all,  and  of  Maynard  in  particular.  When 
the  group  was  established,  containing  so  many  whom  laowes 
Dickinson  had  known  as  undergraduates,  he  was  inevitably  in 
some  sense  of  it.  Sheppard  retained  his  links.  There  was  another 
younger  member^  whose  work  may  possibly  survive  that  of  all 
the  others  — Arthur  Waley.  Whatever  the  beauties  of  Lady 


AET  23  42] 


BLOOMSBURY 


187 

Murasaki’s  novel  in  her  native  tonejue,  Walcy's  exquisite  transla- 
tion must  long  icincim  a classic,  giving  English  readers  their 
chanc  e of  comparing  this  gieat  masterpiece  with  the  finest  pioducts 
of  Greece  or  trance  or  Russia.  James  Strachey  and  W.  J.  H. 
(“  Sebastian  ”)  Sprott  have  produced  woik  in  ps)fhc^]og\.  Geiald 
Shove,  the  economist,  had  close  contact  at  a ecitain  period. 
After  the  lust  World  War,  mar\ellous  to  relate,  a very  small 
infiltration  of  0\foid  men  was  peiniitled  OI  these  first  mention 
should  be  made  of  Ri) monel  Moiiinui,  a lilciarv  critic  ol 
great  distmclion,  who  has  done  much  to  kindle  and  sustain 
British  appreciation  of  tlie  ci\ilisition  of  liancc  He  was  fullv 
adopted  b\  Bloonisbui)  With  the  achant  ige  of  ytais  on  Ins  side, 
he  h.is  earned  foiw  iid  some  ol  its  tiaditions  into  a gcnciation 
that  knew  it  not  Ma)  it  yet  fall  to  tins  Oxloid  man  to  eomposc 
for  posterity  ^some  lecoid  ol  what  was  111  essence  a Cambiidge 
movement^  Other  Oxfoid  figures  were  Stephen  lomlin,^  Philip 
Ritchie,  Roger  Seiihouse  and  1 dw  iid  Sack\  ille-W^est  The 
futurt'  will  not  ha\e  tlie  change  (if  hearing  Sack\ille-WTst  s 
superb  execution  on  the  piano  a a young  man,  but  the  novel 
entitled  Simpson  and  the  biograplu  of  Dc  Qinncey,  entitled  1 
Flame  in  Sunlight^  will  suielv  long  be  tieasuied  What  strikes  the 
eye,  when  it  inspects  this  cataloeue  of  work,  is  the  gieat  dissimi- 
larity between  the  items  Iheie  1 no  c xsc  here  ol  .1  liter aiy  school 
self-consciously  imitating  its  mastci  It  is  quite  a dillercnt  kind 
ol  phenomenon-  1 grouping  togfthir  of  men  of  individual 
genius  01  talent,  finding  stimulus  111  the  society  ol  the  others, 
finding  a congenial  wa^  of  file,  but  eich  puisumg  hi^  own  bent 
and  striMiig  after  Ins  own  unicjuc  loim  ol  expression 

It  has  bt(  n erroneousl)  held  that  Bloomsbury  was  in  the  nature 
of  a mutual  idmiration  society  This  is  \ery  lar  from  the  truth. 
No  doubt  as  fnends  they  would  give  each  other  a hclDing  hand 
towards  material  advinccment  But  within  the  ciicle  they  were 
keenly  enticxil  of  one  anothei  There  w is  no  question  ol  molly- 
coddling A sharp,  biting  wind  of  ciiticisrn  blew  through  all 
the  recesses  of  their  habitations  They  did  not  give  menv  nor 
expect  It.  Indeed,  if  you  chanc  ed  to  hear  one  member  of  Blooms- 
bury pull  another  to  pieces,  not  leiving  a shred,  destroying  him 
utterly,  you  might  wonder  what  foim  their  criticism  would  take 
when  directed  against  an  outsider.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that, 
broadly,  outsiders  were  neglected  It  was  a woi^ld  within  a world. 

* Sec  also  pp  i8g  191  below 


i88  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

By  concentrating  on  the  criticism  of  their  friends,  they  focused 
their  thoughts. 

This  concentration  was  not  a device  for  self-advancement  but 
for  protection  against  all  the  irrelevant,  distracting  and  disin- 
tegrating forces  at  play  in  our  rather  loosely  connected  modern 
society.  It  was  a return  to  the  Greek  City  State.  No  doubt  there 
was  a consciousness  that  other  men  of  talent  were  also  writing  or 
painting.  I'his  might  occasionally  be  denied  in  conversation  — 
Really,  you  know,  there  isn’t  anyone  else  — but  this  pleasant, 
whimsical  conceit  was  not  to  be  taken  too  seriously.  Many  other 
distinguished  people  were  living  in  London  at  the  time,  and  many 
of  them  were  very  anti-Bloomsbury.  Action  and  reaction  are 
said  to  be  equal. 

Although  I have  made  no  attempt  at  comprehensiveness,  it 
would  be  very  contrary  to  the  canons  of  Bloomsbury  if  I mentioned 
only  those  \v  ho  achieved  successful  work.  It  is  fitting  that  I should 
name  also  two  or  three'  others  whose  membership  was  prized  as 
highly  as  those  better  known. 

We  have  had  a g]imi)sc  of  the  arrival  in  Ca^nbridge  in  1905 
of  Harry  Norton,  and  his  early  success  there.  He  very  quickly 
became  a central  figure  and  remained  so  for  a dozen  years.  He 
adopted  the  creed  of  unworldlincss  and  sometimes  took  his  friends 
to  task.  He  was  a man  of  some  means,  and  for  a number  of  years 
made  an  allowance  to  Lytton  Stracliey,  which  was  paid  back  in 
full  after  the  publication  of  Eminent  Victoriam,  By  profession  he 
was  a mathematician,  and  was  elected  to  a Fellowship  at  Trinity 
in  1910  for  a thesis  on  the  application  of  probability  theorems  to 
certain  problems  in  genetics.  He  pursued  this  work  with  a view 
to  publication ; but  time  passed  and  there  seemed  to  be  great 
delay.  Alas,  the  work  never  achieved  consummation.  Norton’s 
mind  became  unable  to  grapple  wath  these  problems  ; he  relapsed 
into  a condition  of  inertia  and  sadness,  and  died  at  the  age  of  fifty. 

Then  there  was  Francis  Birrell.  He  went  up  tor  Cambridge 
in  1908  and  Maynard  became  his  staunch  supporter  and  friend. 
He  was  one  of  the  most  delightful  conversationalists  of  the  group, 
very  Bloomsbury,  very  light,  a man  of  literary  interests  and  wide 
reading  and  excellent  judgment.  He  purveyed  his  learning  and 
his  thoughts  w'ith  exquisite  gracefulness  and  subtle,  delicate  wit, 
zJways  with  a slightly  deprecatory  note  — “ Will  this  quite  do  ? ” 
‘‘  Is  it  quite  like  tliis  ? ” He  was  the  most  companionable  of 
beings.  He  died  of  a tumour  on  the  brain  at  the  age  of  forty-five. 


AET  25-42]  BLOOMSBURY  189 

I once  expressed  a toui  h of  envy  at  the  lovely  hie  he  led  in  an 
endless  round  of  discussion  among  intelligent  and  affectionate 
friends  “ Oh,  no,”  he  said,  “ it  is  not  at  all  like  that  really. 
I spend  most  of  my  time  with  my  father  ” (Augustine  Biirell,  the 
well-known  Liberal  Minister  and  man  of  Ictlcis)  , “ he  is  very 
lonely,  he  has  no  friends,  he  needs  my  soc  Kt>,  1 keep  1 nn  company 
on  most  e\enings  ” “ A\cll,”  I ic plied,  to  in  ikt  tlu  best  of  the 

situation,  “ he  must  lia\e  m endless  fund  of  lemiin  teiu  ts  of  those 
famous  Victorians  whom  he  knew  ” ' Ob,  no,  hi  u plied,  “ he 
does  not  at  all  like  speaking  of  tin  ]>ast , wh  it  he  likes  u aren  ment 
As  a niattei  of  fait  thcr^'  is  realh  finlv  (<nc  irgununt,  Vvliuh  goes 
on  repeating  itself  ” IJaDod  “ What  is  that  aiguiiient  aliout  ” 
Birrell  Whithei  contiaciptms  ate  indit  or  wrong  ” ^ 

Mention  shouW  also  be  mad(  of  Miss  Cn»  m Ion,  aftdwaids 
Mis  Ralpli  Paitiidgi,  alwa\s  knovvn  as  ‘ C aiiingtcm  a Slade 
student  with  an  attractne  face  and  a ti  iiglu  fiingc  a ( loss  hci 
forehead  ^ Dining  tlu  I nst  Woild  W u slu  h id  tli  me  is  of  seeing 
Lyttcfti  btrache),  md  lhe>  bee  nne  fa  t fiunds  L>ttoii  Stiachc) 
had  imt  much  to  ofki  wonun  b\  wa)  of  01  dinars  inastuhne 
blandishment  She  hid  iiitcllci  tu  il  ciavings  and  some  subtlety 
of  apprehension,  and  she  achieved  sUilulion  in  her  ready 
appieciation  of  his  f «ncies  He  found  her  a s\mpithetic  com- 
panion , in  due  course  she  came  to  idolise  lum  Aftci  the  war 
she  and  her  husband  joiiud  him  in  his  house  in  Bcikshirc,  and 
they  leinaincd '^dh  him  till  the  end  \MieTi  lu  du  d,  the  sun  went 
out  of  her  life,  even  thing  seemed  s \ouilfss  and  purposeless. 
She  did  not  long  sui\i\e  him 

Among  the  few  who  filtered  in  fiom  Oxfoid,  very  soon  alter 
the  war,  wi.  Steplien  lomhn  loium\  ’)  He  was  lather 
nearer  to  Lstton  than  to  Mayn  ircl,  ilthough  he  often  eame 

* In  his  Ml  moil  Club  pip  r ( i ir\  B lu  Is  ) hi  idv  uticl  Tcf  j Ho -iboi  ) 
Mi>naril  mikes  just  points  cl  ciituism  mist  < iilv  Bit  insb  ii>  jiliil  isophv  It  is 
possible  also  to  cltUtt  a sli  ht  cliam  t tl  i liu  1<  ubi  c,  to  sonu  Ink  of  s\mpath} 
which  would  h ivt  t'utn  him  gn  ii  n iin  h id  he  1 in  st  cn  it  wht  ii  youm  cr  In  tra  mg 
his  proLTcss  as  an  economist,  the  lograplu  i must  rt  ^ ml  positions  rt  iclud  1 ilt  in  life 
as  having  greater  \ \lidity  thin  earlici  dociimts  In  mittirs  ol  sintiment,  he  should 
regal d earlier  positions  as  having  no  less  vuihon  y thwi  liter  ones  there  aie  dis- 
advantages in  growing  old  Mivnard  ipphed  the  adjtctivc  ‘ brittle”  to  the  frunds 
adding  “ espt  r lally  Tr  inkic  ” I do  not  know  why  ht  singlt  d out  Birrell  in  this  way 
nor,  I beluM , do  h ‘ friends  The  publication  of  liie  Memoir,  without  his  h iviiig  liad 
the  chance  to  levise  it,  miy  unduly  tnhmce  the  importance  of  what  miy  have  been 
no  more  than  a p is  ing  whim  I lancis  Burt  11  wis  a ran  and  beautiful  «puit,  whom 
they  all  loved  dearlv 

* C f al  o pp  209-218  below  Piitridg#*  was  another  notiBlc  Oxford  accession  to 
Bloomsbury 


igo  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

to  the  Maynard  home.  He  was  a man  of  extraordinarily  versatile 
talent,  Classical  scholar  at  New  College,  poet,  brilliant  actor, 
pianist,  and,  by  profession,  sculptor.  Above  all,  he  was  a con- 
versationalist whose  assiduity  was  capable  of  exhausting  even 
Bloomsbury.  Not  that  he  was  for  a moment  a boring  talker ; on 
the  contrary,  some  might  rank  him  as  the  most  interesting  of  them 
all.  Although  he  was  at  Oxford  (but  only  for  three  teiins),  he 
was  just  a little  more  scricius  in  his  tones  than  standard  Bloomsbury. 
Some  Bloomsbury  mannerisms  were  supei imposed  on  a beautiful, 
rich,  mellow  and  appealing  voice.  His  knowledge  was  consider- 
able and  his  mind  in  incessant  activity.  He  had  a commanding 
intellectual  power,  so  that  the  clevciest  people  were  impressed 
by  his  judgment,  even  when  he  was  very  young.  lie  acquired  a 
great  interest  in  psycho-anahsis  and  was  one  of  the  few  amateurs 
who  made  the  rnoie  technical  paits  of  Tieucl  inteicsling  and 
enticing.  So-and-so,  you  sec,  has  an  anxiety  ” ; the  word 
anxiety  ” would  lie  nUher  lengthily  draxvn  out  in  the  Blooms- 
bury manner;  and  then  one  knew  that  one  might  expect  a 
fascinating  diagnosis. 

He  was  interesled  in  these  tcchniciues;  out,  long  before  he 
knew  about  them,  he  had  a natural  power  of  psychological 
sympathy.  Staiting  with  some  bits  and  pieces,  some  stiav  ends 
of  foolish  thoughts  of  a soul  in  distress,  he  could  cicate  for  him 
a different  \iew,  illumine  his  path,  give  him  nc‘w  thoughts,  new 
hopes,  invest  his  life  with  a new  Intercast  and  digniu.  Toi  anyone, 
howevei  diffeicnt  he  need  not  lie  of  Bloonis)3iuy--lalk  with 
him  was  <ilways  exhilarating,  ]ea\ing  the  soul  icpienished. 

You  might  p.iit  company,  giateful  and  ple.isc'd  at  having  met 
him  ; thcie  wms  a strong  haiicbhakc  and  a winning  smile.  You 
might  watch  him  walk  awav  with  a rather  dcdibeiate  tread,  his 
shoulders  swinging  with  a suspicion  oF  jauiitiiiess  that  was  not 
(juite  Bloomsbury,  ^"ou  saw  him  proceed,  turn  into  a side  street 
and  disappear  behind  the  railings.  Then,  if  you  reflected  a 
moment,  you  knew  that  black  and  horiible  despair  and  anguish 
seized  and  lent  him;  it  was  hardly  possible  to  walk  forward; 
he  felt  himself  personally  guilty  of  all  the  suflcrings  taking  place 
in  the  world  ; was  there  not  some  sick  person  with  whom  he  could 
exchange  his  life?  How  shuffle  off  these  terrible  mortal  coils 
quickly  ? 

In  his  conversation  with  others  he  brought  good  cheer;  he 
seldom  referred  to  the  dai  k side.  One  asked  him  if  he  could  not 


AKT.  25.42]  BLOOMSBURY  191 

look  at  matters  differently.  He  replied  calmly  that  he  supposed 
he  must  have  a disease  of  the  brain ; that  he  must  be  a little  mad 
really.  His  was  a case  in  which  it  would  seem  that  so  much 
psychical  force  went  into  the  understanding  of  others,  interpreting 
life  so  as  to  create  for  tlieir  benefit  something  intelligible  and 
hopeful,  that  there  was  no  energy  left  for  building  up  some  kind 
of  idea  about  his  own  life ; when  it  t amc  to  that,  he  found  himself 
stripped  of  all  vitality,  a poor  dejected  creature,  a liroken  reed. 
He  died  of  pneumonia  at  the  age  of  thirty -five,  I hcie  is  a bust 
of  Lytlon  Strachey  by  him  in  the  Tate  Gallery,  one  of  Virginia 
Woolf  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  David  Garnett,  one  of  Duncan 
Grant  in  the  possession  of  Lady  Keynes,  and  he  did  a number 
of  other  skilful  portraits,  'fhere  is  a fine  woman  nude,  on  a 
large  scale,  in  the  grounds  of  Biddesden  Hou^e,  in  Wiltshire.^ 

Such  werg  Keynes'  associates  lor  more  than  a dozen  years. 
Later,  the  pattern  was  to  < hange  somewhat,  lie  found  in  a happy 
inariiage  the  ideal  background  for  the  ptolongcd  creative  work 
that  he  liad  then  to  do.  Meanwhile  he  jiiofitcd  imnh  from  the 
constant  stimulus  and  affcs  tioii  of  his  Bloomsbury  Iriends.  And 
of  course  he  ga\e  much.  They  on  their  side  weie  stimulated  by 
his  delightful  company,  his  \itality  and  the  irnpar  t of  his  abounding 
interests.  And  they  gained,  too,  fnmi  his  resouices  of  knowledge 
and  worldly  contact.  He  was  thcii  m.uii  i)illar  of  strength,  their 
sage,  their  financial  adviser,  their  patron.  He  was  always  ready 
to  help,  in  one  way  or  another,  to  pionujlc  their  maleiial  interests. 
They  also  drew  intellectual  sustenance  bom  him.  Was  he  not  a 
logician,  a mathematician,  a philosojihcr,  an  economist  and  an 
expert  on  many  aspects  v f public  affairs?  They  valued  his  judg- 
nient  on  all  these  topics.  They  were  not  flimsy  litUialeun^  content 
to  take  up  philosojihical  or  scientific  ideas  by  hearsay  or  from 
inferior  sources.  One  and  call,  they  wished  their  woik  to  be  well 
based,  if  only  it  were  possible,  on  a sound  philosophy.  Is  it 
right,  Maynard?  ” Is  it  sound  ? ” “ Is  it  logically  tenable?  ” 
“ Are  these  really  the  faci . ” 

They  were  all  people  of  strong  individuality,  and  were  strongly 
individualist  in  creed.  And  so  was  Maynard.  He  was  an  indi- 
vidualist to  the  finger-tips.  For  him  those  concerned  wath 
government  wTre  a lesser  breed  of  men,  whose  role  was  essentially 
a subordinate  one.  I’he  idea  that  a government,  however 
popularly  elected,  should  be  entrusted  to  make  certain  value 
* The  proper  tv  of  Lord  Moyne. 


iga  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

judgments  on  behalf  of  the  community  was  anathema  to  him. 
He  had  no  sympathy  with  the  project  of  limiting  consumers’ 
freedom  of  choice  for  the  sake  of  greater  efRciency,  mass  produc- 
tion or  standardisation. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  was  violently  opposed  to  laissez-faire, 
Mr.  Sheppard  recalls  a speech  which  he  made  at  a Liberal 
meeting  when  an  undergraduate.  He  defined  Conservatives  and 
Liberals  in  this  way:  let  there  be  a village  whose  inhabitants 
were  living  in  conditions  ol*  penury  and  distress  ; the  typical 
Conservative,  when  shown  this  village,  said  It  is  very  distressing, 
but,  unfortunately,  it  cannot  be  helped ; ” the  Liberal  said, 
Something  must  be  done  about  this.”  That  was  why  he  was  a 
Liberal.  Sheppard  was  impressed  with  this  simple  statement  of 
creed.  Whether  or  not  it  can  be  regarded  as  an  adequate  and 
comprehensive  definition  of  the  philosophies  of  the  two  parties 
at  that  time,  the  view  asserted  to  be  Liberal  was  assuredly  May- 
nard’s throughout  his  life.  He  believed  that  distress  in  all  its 
forms  should  not  go  unheeded.  He  believed  that,  by  care  and 
pains,  all  our  social  evils,  distressed  areas,  unemployment  and  the 
rest,  could  be  abolished.  lie  believed  in  planning^and  contriving. 
A way  could  be  Ibund.  That  w«is  his  experience  in  his  private 
life  and  in  the  affairs  of  his  college,  and  the  same  maxim  should 
be  applied  in  public  affairs.  He  always  had  a scheme.  His 
mental  energy  and  resources  were  limitless.  If  a thing  could  not 
be  done  in  this  way,  it  could  be  done  in  that. 

How  can  one  reconcile  the  adamant  and  uncompromising 
individualism  which  was  at  the  centre  of  his  being  and  his  fervent 
belief  in  planning  ? Did  he  resolve  what  might  seem  on  the  surface 
to  be  a contradiction  ? — a question  of  no  little  interest,  since  its 
successful  resolution  may  l)e  the  prerequisite  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  kind  of  civilisation  we  have  known.  In  Keynes’  economic 
writings  is  to  be  found  his  solution  of  this  dilemma.  It  is  one  of  the 
problems  to  which  he  ai)plicd  his  whole  mind,  a not  inconsiderable 
one,  and  deep  study  of  his  conclusions  will  long  remain  worth 
while. 

This  problem  is  tied  up  with  another,  to  which  he  gave  less 
explicit  thought.  We  have  seen  that  he  was  strongly  imbued  with 
what  I have  called  the  presuppositions  of  Harvey  Road.  One  of 
these  presuppositions  may  perhaps  be  summarised  in  the  idea 
that  the  government  of  Britain  w’^as  and  would  continue  to  be 
in  the  hands  of  *an  intellectual  aristocracy  using  the  method  of 


AET.  25-42] 


BLOOMSBURY 


193 

persuasion.  If,  owing  to  the  needs  of  planning,  the  functions  of 
government  became  very  far-reaching  and  multifarious,  would  it 
be  possible  for  the  intellectual  aristocracy  to  remain  in  essential 
control?  Keynes  tended  till  the  end  to  think  of  the  really 
important  decisions  being  reached  b\  a small  group  of  intelligent 
people,  like  the  group  that  ladiioned  th(‘  Bn'tton  Woods  })lan. 
But  would  not  a deniociatic  goveiiuneiit  having  c'  wide  multi- 
plicity of  duties  tend  to  get  out  of  contiol  and  art  in  a way  of 
which  the  intelligent  would  not  a]>prove  ? This  is  another 
dilemma--  liow  to  reconcile  tlie  lunc  tioning  of  a planning  and 
interfering  denioctacy  with  the  ie(|uiiement  that  in  the  last  resort 
the  l)est  considered  judgment  should  prevail.  It  nia\  Ije  that  the 
presuppositions  of  Harvey  Road  were  so  much  of  a second  nature 
to  Keynes  that  he  did  not  give  this  clileinina  the  lull  considetation 
which  it  deserves. 

There  is  also  the  eternal  ciuestion  in  ccononm  s of  tlic  rc'lation 
of  means  to  ends.  Conscientious  economists  usually  stress  the 
point  that  their  science  is  conccriU‘d  with  nicMus  only,  and  that 
it  is  for  others  to  picsciil)e  the  ends.  None  the  Ic^ss  it  is  hard  to 
draw  the  line,  espcciallv  when  ihe  economist  concerns  himself 
with  piactical  issuers.  An  idea  as  to  what  the  a)>i)iopriaie  e ids 
are  may  lurk  implicit  in  his  xecomniendatiori.  Senne  econoiiu\ls 
are  felt  to  have  had  too  riaiiow  a view  ol  the  emds  of  society.  Not 
so  Keynes,  His  writings  are  iiiMiiK  t with  bioad  and  gc'iunous 
views.  We  need  not  attribute  this  to  the  inllueiicc  (;f  Bloomshui  v ; 
but  wc  c.an  as^ocLVe  it  with  his  being  the  kind  of  man  who  would 
enjoy  Bloomsbury  society. 

While  he  had  his  own  inner  vision,  he  was  none  tiic  Ics^ 
awaie  that  ecoiioniisls  is  such  must  not  cneislep  the  maik.  He 
once  defined  his  position  in  some  woids  very  caielnlly  chosen. 
It  was  at  the  end  oi  his  speech  at  a dinnei  given  him  by  the 
Council  of  the  Royal  Economic  Sovicty  in  191'i  on  his  letiicnunt 
from  the  Editorship  erf  the  Ecorutan  Joutua!  after  ihiily-tlui'c  years. 
It  had  been  a wonderful  s])cech,  easy,  pleasantly  flowing,  mellow, 
full  of  amusing  anecdotes  and  fascinating  character  sketches  of 
Balfour,  Haldane  and  other  eminent  people,  with  whom  he  had 
had  contact  as  secretary  of  the  Society.  Finally  he  cam<"  to  the 
toast.  “ I give  you  the  toast  of  the  Royal  Economic  Socicty'^,  of 
economics  and  economists,  who  arc  the  trustees  . . . ’ It  would 
have  been  easy  to  say  the  trustees  of  civilisation  ”,  and  to  have 
sat  down  amid  appropriate  applause.  . . wh6  are  the  trustees, 

O 


194  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1908-25 

not  . . One  could  not  help  having  the  idea  - Why  this 
pedantic  ‘ not  ’ ? ” Surely  this  was  not  the  moment  for  academic 
qualifications,  for  ifs  and  buts.  It  wa*?  true  that  he  was  addressing 
the  members  of  the  Council  of  the  Royal  Economic  Society, 
professors,  men  of  learning.  But  still,  we  were  also  human  It 
was  a goldc  n hour  , our  hearts  had  been  tou(  hed  , we  had  drunk 
champagne  ^\e  had  in  fact  each  had  one  modest  glass  ot  cham- 
pagne, but  had  arranged  that  Maynard  should  have  champagne 
only,  from  the  soup  oiiwaids  through  the  e\cning  Really  there 
was  something  mtohrable  about  the  donnish  “ not”  coming  at 
this  hour  and  place  It  was  so  unlike  Mavnaid  not  to  sj}  a thing 
simply  and  boldl\  But  he  was  choosing  his  words  and 

to  economist  , who  uc  the  trustees,  not  ot  ciMlisatuin  but  of  the 
possibility  of  cuilisation  ’ He  had  said  what  he  wanted  to  say 
And  what  he  had  s ud  was  true,  not  something  dipsliod,  which 
might  piss  raustei  on  such  an  occasion,  but  an  accurate  descrip- 
tion, which  would  beai  the  test  of  close  sciiilmv  m the  cleai  light 
of  da)  And  it  did  lull  justice  to  economics  Wlicn  he  e imc  to 
the  ‘‘not’,  did  tlieic  flit  ihiough  his  mind  a Msion  of  Lvtton, 
of  Duncin  of  \irgima^  1 he>  were  tin  liuskc  ol  cJ\ilisation 
1 eonomists  had  the  humble  1,  but  still  ejnite  indispc  ns  ible,  iol<  , 
It  was  tlitO  to  which  he  h<icl  dcxolcd  his  own  lile 


( II  p r p K VI 


thp:  first  world  war  and  thl 

PARIS  PLACE  CONFERLNC  i: 

1 

1r  was  Siiiida),  2nd  August  Ibe  da\  was  dawning  on  a 

now  and  Ituihlc  wr)i]d  The  l)enignit\  oi  die  siinsluni  liad 
dcpai  ed  , and  in  its  placf  was  a haisli  uc,  is  il  might  be  on 
some  strange  planet,  a jdace  ol  unknown  and  nameless  liorrois. 
BiJtain  was  to  he  (aiind  fai  Jrom  her  inooiings.  \\()iild  she 
e\ei  regain  them  ^ Cnihsilion  was  to  be  dismpud  Would  it 
cvei  be  le  toied^  AVhat  vould  become  of  poeti>  and  painting 
and  philosopliN  What  of  old  hicnd'.  ind  liu  ndslnps  ? And 

what,  amid  these  stem  and  duel  exciits,  of  a group  ol  sensitive 
and  pcaec-loMiig  people,  who  had  aspned,  in  then  quiet  wav, 
towaids  a inoic  haimonious  manner  of  living^  All  things  would 
indeed  be  built  anew,  but  b>  the  blind  force  ol  cue  inistauces, 
not  bv  the  mind  and  will 

Winn  It  Wc  du  ided  that  it  would  be  more  appr  piiate  for 
Keynes  to  serve  i a lull  meinbei  of  the  Ineh  in  Can r tin  v (knnmis- 
sion,  Basil  BlackeM  ha  1 been  <ip])ointed  to  the  v.aant  pe)st  of 
secrctaiy  He  V\  is  no  m the  lieasurv,  struggling  with  great 
issues  and  gieat  entw  Britain  was  on  the  brink  ol  wai.  What 
of  her  gold  stajidaid  What  of  hci  finaneial  leader ‘•hip  ? Dining 
the  preceding  decades,  stie'tdnng  b.u  k for  a eenturv,  die  had  in 
effeet  provided  a stalile  euirene  \ h)i  the  whole  woild,  and  thereby 
(ontnbutcel  gieallv  to  t^e  growth  ol  tiade  and  jnoeluetioii  evei)- 
wheie.  Il  has  since  been  a commonplace  of  the  history  books 
that  this  system  w<is  terminated  by  the  Fust  World  Wai,  and  that 
up  to  the  piescnt  time  no  alternative  sjstcm  has  been  found  to 
woik  so  well  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  narties  But  Britain  did  not 
abandon  her  responsibilities  without  >ome  struiigic,  Basil  Blackett, 
conscious  of  the  momentous  nature  of  the  decisions  which  would 
be  taken,  took  up  his  diarist’s  pen,  whic  h had  been  idle  (or  some 

105 


196  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1914 

years.  He  was  most  anxious  that,  at  this  crucial  moment,  the 
right  things  should  be  done,  and,  at  the  time,  the  maintenance 
of  specie  payments  seemed  all-important.  The  Treasury  was  of 
one  mind  on  this,  and  was  supported  by  the  Bank  of  England. 
But  there  were  already  present  on  the  scene  representatives  of 
bankers,  making  sweeping  demands  for  the  creation  of  new  assets 
and  the  suspension  of  liabilities  — sinister  presage  of  so  much  that 
was  to  follow.  In  Blackett’s  view  the  bankers  must  be  defeated 
at  all  costs,  and  his  mind  reveitcd  to  Keynes,  who  had  proved 
such  a splendid  warrior  on  the  Indian  Currency  Commission. 

Blackett’s  message  reached  Keynes  in  Cambridge  on  Sunday. 
The  trains  seemed  unsatisfactory,  and  Keynes  appealed  to  his 
brother-in-law,  A.  \\  Hill,  who  was  the  proud  possessor  of  a 
motor-bicycle  and  side-car.  Hill  made  a trij)  to  London  in  order 
to  give  Keynes  a lift.  As  they  drew  near  to  ^^'hitehall,  they 
had  an  uneasy  feeling  that  it  v/ould  l)e  incmigruous  to  approach 
the  august  portals  of  the  Treasuiy  on  a pre-war  liOndon  Sunday 
afternoon  in  this  conveyance.  Keynes  alighted  at  the  end’ofthe 
street. 


Exh acts  from  Basil  lilacketrs  Diaty 

August  i>n^:  Keynes  turned  u])  (T  liad  tiled  lo  get  at  him  to 
influence  the  Bankers  on  Friday  night)  and  he,  Hav  trey  and  1 had 
tea  at  6 r.M.  ftny  first  meal  since  breakfast)  at  the  United  Univer- 
sities Club.  Keynes  is  entirely  with  us,  though  (like  me)  he  docs 
nut  share  in  full  Bradbury’s  detestation  of  the  Joint  Stork  Banks’ 
paying  in  gold  to  the  Bank  of  England.  We  all  agree  that  it  w^ould  be 
better  that  they'  should  use  their  gold  to  pay  customers  (and  we  arc 
trying  to  say  so  in  our  reply  to  them),  Imt  if  their  gold  is  fieely  paid 
out  by'  the  Bank  of  Faigland,  no  gieat  harm  arises,  sfj  Keynes  and 
I think. 

Blackett  had  serious  misgivings  about  the  capacity  of  Lloyd 
George  (commonly  known  in  Treasury  circles  as  “ the  Goat  ”). 
August  ist:  ‘‘  If  Sir  Edward  Grey  is  indispensable  at  the  Foreign 
Office,  the  last  fe^v  day^s  suggest  that  Lloyd  George  could  be 
dispensed  with  at  the  Treasury  August  2nd:  “ There  was 
imminent  possibility  of  their”  (TJoyd  George  and  some  others) 
“ resigning  forthwith,  and  being  replaced  by  Opposition  members. 
This  suggested  Austen  Chamberlain  for  the  Treasury  and  the 
financial  situation  saved.” 


aet  31]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  197 

August  3rd:  House  rose  about  10.15  p-m.  Back  to  Treasury  to 
get  memorandum  by  Keynes  on  disastrous  character  of  any  policy 
leading  to  suspension  of  specie  payments  which  he  was  preparing  at 
my  instigation.  Home  leading  it,  anivinir  about  11.40  p.m. 

August  ^th:  Kc>nes’  memorandum  given  by  Hamilton  to  Lloyd 
George,  who  asked  who  Kcmics  was,  and  on  hting  told  that  he  was 
a friend  of  mine,  expeit  jn  currency,  said  it  Wexs  nioiistiuus  that 
Treasuiy  ofTicials  should  call  in  outsiders  on  thou  o\vii  icsponsibility. 
But  he  read  the  memorandum 

August §ih:  Llo>d  Geoige  has  at  last  come  down  nn  the  right  side 
and  is  in  a fair  way  to  becoming  quite  a cuneiuv  evpeit  lie  has 
clearly  imbibed  much  of  Keynes’  memoiandum  and  is  stiong  ig*unsl 
suspension  of  specie  pa)  nicnts.  \Vc  are  all  in  high  sjm  us  at  iht 

prospect  of  victoiy  foi  'lieasuis  \iews 

August  8th:  Lloyd  Geoige's  comeision  v\a^  a tiiiimjih,  1 ut  he 
himself  is  ie<wlly  a wondei.  h took  some  tinu  <0  t^acli  Inin,  but  he 
piomiscs  now  to  readi  the  liont  rank  of  financial  cspcits,  il  his 
present  knowledge  make's  him  it  tain  a taste  foi  tiie  (mrc  finance  side 
of  the  lieasiiiy  woik  whuh  he  has  hitluilo  < ntiul\  in  glectcd. 

No  further  services  were  leeiiiitccl  of  Keynes  foi  the  time  lieing, 
and  it  was  only  caily  111  1015  tKit  he  entered  the  Tieasuiy  “ for 
the  duration 

Apart  fiom  a holiday  in  a camp  near  Coverack,  he  was  in 
London  duiing  most  of  August  and  Sejitcmbei  aiul  eomjroscd 
an  article  lor  the  Economic  Journal  whicli  ajij)tau*cl  in  the  Sep- 
tember issue,  under  the  title  Wai  and  the  Fineiuial  System, 
August  IQH ’’  This  was  a dc'sciiption  and  anaKsis  ol  the 
tangled  situation  at  the  oulbicak  ol  the  wai.  It  was  wntien 
with  his  masterly  cLirit  . He  was  widely  congialnlaied  on  it  as 
a fine  pci loi mane e,  ahhough  seune,  who  wcic  ignoiant  ol  the 
fierce  battles  which  liad  lagecl  in  tlie  first  few  davs,  thought  th*it 
he  had  been  rather  loo  severe  to  the  bankers.  He  softcnccl  his 
criticism  in  an  article  w^hich  appealed  in  the  following  '"December) 
issue,  probaWy  less  from  any  ^ense  that  his  previous  strictures 
were  too  strong,  than  fiom  his  general  respect  foi  the  City  and 
its  ways,  and  his  desire  to  maintain  its  piestige  in  these  difficult 
times.  He  would  not  be  likely  to  exaggerate  in  staling  his  views 
to  Alfred  Mai  shall, 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Dr,  Maishally  loth  October  igi  i 

Thanks  very  much  for  your  letter.  It  was  ^impossible  to  do 
justice  to  the  question  of  the  behaviour  of  the  banks  in  the  early  days 


igS  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1914 

of  the  war  without  going  into  personalities,  which  was  not  possible 

in  the  Journal.  and were  the  spokesmen  of  the  bankers 

and  the  men  whom  the  Treasury  looked  to  as  their  leaders.  The  one 
was  cowardly  and  the  other  selfish.  They  unquestionably  behaved 
badly,  and  it  is  not  disputed  that  they  pressed  strongly  for  suspension 
of  cash  payments  by  the  Bank  of  England.  By  no  means  all  of  the 
other  bankers  either  trusted  - - and  — or  agreed  with  their  immedi- 
ate proposals ; but  they  were  timid,  voiceless  and  lead(*rlcss  and  in 
the  hurry  of  the  times  did  not  make  themselves  heard.  I think,  how- 
ever, that,  taking  a long  view,  th*'  l)anks  themselves  are  to  blame  for 
this.  They  are  too  largely  staffed,  apart  from  the  directors,  on  what 
in  the  Civil  Service  is  called  a second  division  basis.  Half  of  their 
directors,  on  the  other  liand,  are  appointed  on  heicditary  grounds 
and  two-fifths,  not  on  grounds  of  banking  capacity,  but  because  they 
are  a]:)le,  through  thc'ir  business  connections,  to  bring  to  the  bank  a 
certain  class  of  business.  Naturall>  when  the  time  comes  they  find 
themselves  without  a leatlei  of  the  right  kind.  And  no  one  but  them- 
selves is  to  blame.  P<irker,  liere,  tells  nu‘  that  the  meetings  at  tlic 
Tieasury  took  plate  befoie  the  Board  of  Bait  lay’s  had  an 'oppor- 
tunity to  meet.  Of  course  they  did.  In  crises  you  must  have  a few 
men  at  tlie  top  e:i])able  of  taking  wise  decisions  iminc'diately\  For- 
tunately we  had  *1  few  such,  but  not  amongst  the  Joint  Slock 
Bankers. 

At  least  that  is  my  view'^  ofw'hat  happened. 

The  second  Journal  article  carried  on  the  story  and  gave  a for- 
ward survey.  Although  it  has  been  less  read  since,  and  described 
events  of  less  crucial  inipoilancc,  it  is  in  sonic  respects  more 
interesting  than  the  first  <irticle.  He  made  prognostications 
in  regard  to  the  future  of  the  exchanges,  and  he  predicted, 
correctly"  as  it  turned  out,  that  gold  would  be  released  on  a big 
scale  from  the  rcser\es  of  the  various  belligerents  and  suffer  a 
consequent  decline  of  value  in  terms  of  commodities.  This 
article  is  a most  striking  example  of  his  skill  in  predicting  likely 
future  developments  out  of  a complicated  situation.* 

And  what  would  lie  the  final  upshot  ? The  article  contains  a 
speculation  of  some  interest. 

1 1 is,  therefore,  a possible  consequence  of  the  present  w"ar,  more 
likely  in  proportion  as  the  w'ar  is  prolonged  - I cannot  say  that  I 
yet  think  it  probabh'  - - that  some  international  regulation  of  the 
standard  will  be  forced  on  the  principal  countries  of  the  world.  If  it 
prove  one  of  the  after-effects  of  the  present  struggle,  that  gold  is  at 
last  deposed  from  its  despotic  control  over  us  and  reduced  to  the 


AET  31] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


m 

position  of  a constitutional  monarch,  i n'"v\  chaptci  of  histoi)  will  be 
opened  Man  w ill  h i\  c made  another  step  tor  w ard  in  the  attainment 
of  self-shovel  nment,  in  the  povvir  to  control  his  fortunes  according  to 
his  own  wishes  We  shall  then  record  the  subtle,  piotound,  un- 
intended, and  often  unnoticed  influcn((s  of  the  piecious  met  ils  on 
past  historical  e\(nts  is  rim  ictenstic  of  an  cului  period  A new 
dragon  will  hi\c  been  set  up  it  a new  (hilchis  to  i»imd  th<  Golden 
1 Icccc  from  ad\entmeis 

In  the  welter  of  confusion  tint  followed  the  I list  W^uld  War, 
nothing  ol  this  sort  was  thought  ol  It  was  oiil)  iftei  the  ^cirs 
had  pissed  iiid  iiiotliei  greit  c it  isdoplic  hid  befallen  the  world 
that  such  a pi  in  bee  in  to  I ike  sli  ijk  , willi  Kcvius  himself  is  the 
master  mind  And  c\en  now  we  do  not  know  if  man  will  hive 
sufTKicnt  resolution,  imid  the  difluiihics  tint  h'i\e  followed  the 
Second  Olid  ^\  ir  to  bring  the  pi  in  to  fruition  Ke)nesfoKSiw 
at  an  carl>  date  what  would  be  iieeessai},  but  blind  fortes 
ha\e  moved  more  ciiiukly  thin  wise  pi  inning,  and  the  doin  un 
of  Chios  eontinues  to  be  evtended  While  Kiynes  has  been 
so  olten  eutuised  is  a vaeillitoi,  I would  sti<  ^s  the  eontinuity 
throuLdi  his  life  of  his  m 1111  idcis  iricf  pi  ms 

Another  exiinple  of  this  contini'itv  is  fuirnshed  it  this  (iinc, 
dthough  the  m itter  w \ less  momentous  one  Kc\ncs’  prefer- 
ence for  miint  lining  men  it  work  1 ilhei  ih  in  in  une  rnplovme  nt, 
which  wis  to  ])I  i\  such  m import  int  part  m his  late  views,  is 
seen  m this  letter  to  his  mother  who  hid  Minght  ulviet  m her 
c ipaeilv  of  Gu  irdi  in  of  the  Poor 


7 M hnne\  fo  Um  Kimus,  ()0  lu^u  i IQ14 

Where  inone>  e ui  be  usefully  spent  m e ipilil  impruve- 
menls  1 luge  put  of  it  going  in  piynent  of  1 ilrour  wh  ch  7i  i fht 
o^hemise  he  untinplo^td^  the  aigi  nent  for  spendino  it  js  verv  stion< 
It  would,  foi  example,  be  iidiculous  for  the  gu  ndiins  to  contribute 
to  the  amount  of  une  in  ^1  rvment  in  C mil  ridge  b>  refraining  irom 
useful  building,  and  then  spend  monev  in  older  to  give  rehef,  to 
maintain  men  in  idleness  01  in  relatively  useless  oecupalions 

Keynes  also  published  an  ailick  on  The  City  of  London  and 
the  Bank  of  Prigland  ”,  in  the  November  issue  of  the  Quarterly 
Journal  of  L(onomics,  His  Treasury  position  pi  evented  him  from 
writing  more  for  the  rest  of  the  war.  He  found  time,  however, 


200  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1914 

to  review  the  new  edition  of  the  IVorks  of  Walter  Bagehot^^  whose 
precepts  he  must  have  had  in  mind  on  the  outbreak  of  war.  He 
placed  Bagehot  very  fairly,  resisting  the  claim  that  he  is  to  be 
taken  seriously  as  a critic  of  Shakespeare  or  Milton.  In  the 
history  of  economics,  Bagehot  and  Keynes  are  probably  to  be 
reckoned  as  the  two  economists  most  highly  endowed  with  psycho- 
logical insight.  It  is  fascinating  to  read  the  comment  of  the  one 
upon  the  other.  While  paying  a tribute  to  Bagehot’s  subtlety, 
when  analysing  the  minds  of  business  men  (not  of  poets  — 
Keynes  was  not  a member  of  Bloomsbury  for  nothing),  and  to 
Bagehot's  many  other  fine  qualities,  he  points  out  correctly  that 
Bagehot  had  but  small  capacity  for  economic  theory,  which  was 
a drawback. 

The  same  issue  of  the  Economic  Journal  contained  a review 
article  by  Keynes  on  a number  of  German  publications  regarding 
the  German  war  effort  (“  The  Economics  of  War  in  Germany  ”)  ; 
his  appraisal  was  cool,  without  warlike  passion  or  distortion,  and 
praise  was  given  where  due.  There  w^as  w^arning  that  the  nflpthods 
employed  were  likely  to  lead  to  very  serious  inflation.  But  when 
he  came  to  deal  with  Prof<‘ssor  Jaffe,  cxpounditig  a social  philo- 
sophy of  strength  for  the  sake  of  war,  the  venom  of  Keynes’ 
attack  w^as  as  potent  as  that  of  the  most  heated  British  patriot. 
Keynes  thought  it  important  to  keep  track  of  what  the  Germans 
themselves  were  thinking,  and  in  collaboration  with  Mr.  Dudley 
Ward,  by  this  time  his  colleague  in  the  Treasury,  he  had  a transla- 
tion of  some  weighty  articles  in  the  Fiankfuiter  Z^itung  published 
by  Macmillan  {England's Financial  Supremacy^  1917)-  f ^is  appeared 
anonymously.  The  opening  preface  of  three  pages  is  clearly  from 
Keynes’  pen. 

Michaelmas  Term  (ion)  saw  him  back  at  Cambridge  at  his 
normal  duties.  Sorrow  lay  heavily  upon  him,  as  on  so  many 
others. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  G.  L.  Strachey^  27 th  November  1^14 

. . . For  myself  I am  absolutely  and  completely  desolated.  It  is 
utterly  unbearable  to  see  day  by  day  the  youths  going  away,  first  to 
boredom  and  discomfort,  and  then  to  slaughter.  Five  of  this  college, 
who  are  undergraduates  or  who  have  just  gone  down,  are  already 
killed,  including,  to  my  great  grief,  Freddie  Hardman.  . . . 


* Economic  Journal,  September  1915. 


AET  31]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  201 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  Duncan  Chanty  25th  April  igi^ 

. . . This  has  been  a horrible  weekend,  and  I feel  again,  although 
I thought  I should  not,  as  I did  after  Freddie’s  death  Yesterday 
came  the  news  that  two  of  oui  undei graduates  were  killed,  both  of 
whom  I knew,  though  not  very  well,  and  was  fond  of  And  to-dav, 
Rupert’s  death  * In  spite  of  all  one  has  ever  said,  1 find  myself  crying 
for  him  It  IS  too  horrible,  a niehtmaie  to  be  ‘•topt  inyhow  May 
no  other  generation  live  under  the  cloud  we  live  under 

In  Decembei  he  went  to  visit  his  brother,  GeofTiey,  who  was 
on  medical  dut)  at  a hospital  in  Veisailles.  He  took  this  oppor- 
tunity of  obtaining  infoimation  about  the  1 reiich  financial  con- 
duct of  the  war.  Soon  afterwards,  when  installed  at  the  7 icasuiy, 
he  had  to  go  on  a deputation  to  Pans,  which  included  the  Chan- 
cellor of  the  exchequer,  Llo>d  George.  In  ihe  lailway  carnage, 
Lloyd  George  gave  his  exposition  of  the  state  ol  affairs  m Fiance. 
He  called  for  comment  In  due  course  Kc>ncs  was  asked  to 
speak.  “ With  the  utmost  lespect,  I must,  it  asked  for  my  opinion, 
tell  you  that  I icgard  vour  account  as  rubbish.”  A couple  of 
years  later  it  happened  that  Bonar  Law,  when  he  had  just  suc- 
ceeded McKenna  in  the  Chancellorship,  applied  this  same  word 
to  an  exposition  b)  Llovd  Gcoige  at  a Cabinet  meeting  “Ah,” 
said  Llovd  George,  “I  see  you  have  learnt  7ieasin>  manners 
quickly  ” ^ 

Llo)d  George  liked  to  gather  around  him  persons  who  were 
not  of  the  TkjjI  hiriai(h\  but  had  full  access  to  secret 
information,  111  oiclcr  that  thev  should  give  him  independent 
advice  as  a check  up«  11  his  officials.'*  He  (lc\ eloped  this  policy 
on  a large  scale  whei  he  was  Piiinc  Ministci,  and  his  advisers 
of  this  class  weie  known  as  “ the  garden  suburb  ”.  As  Chancelloi 
he  had  one  such  adviser.  Sir  Geoige  Pauh,  who  had  to  wnte  him 
numerous  memoianda  on  the  various  topics  ansing  Paisli  felt 
himself  overburdened  and  a^^ked  foi  an  assistant,  and  it  was  as 
such  that  Keynes,  whom  Blackett  had  been  most  anxious  to  get 
into  the  Treasury,  was  taken  on  in  January 

The  situation  soon  changed.  Lloyd  George  was  succeeded 
by  McKenna  in  May  1915,  and  Keynes  was  incorporated 

’ Rupert  Brooke 

® On  his  return  to  the  Treasury  that  day  Bonar  Law  asked  his  oiHaals  for  an 
explanation  of  this  nposte,  and  they  remembered  the  railway  cairiagc  incident 

3 Mr  Churchill  had  a similar  plan  m the  Second  World  Wai,  albeit  on  -i  kss 
grandiose  scale. 


202  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1915 

as  part  of  the  regular  staff  of  No.  I Division,  which  was  con- 
cerned with  finance. 

In  the  following  June  he  had  to  accompany  Mr.  McKenna 
to  Nice  in  order  to  make  financial  arrangements  with  the  Italians. 
He  had  several  days  of  exceedingly  hard  work.  He  did  not  go 
to  bed  for  three  nights  and  on  the  final  night  had  a race  with 
time,  labouring  with  Signor  Nathan  to  get  the  agreement  into 
order.  He  attributed  it  to  the  sudden  strain  of  this  highly  respon- 
sible and  fatiguing  work  that,  when  he  got  home,  he  had  to  have 
an  emergency  operation  for  appendicitis  and  was  gravely  ill. 
There  were  complications,  which  were  to  have  serious  consequences 
twenty-tw^o  years  later. 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  Mn,  Keynes^  lyth  July  1913.  Garsington  Manor 

1 was  none  the  worse  for  stepping  briskly  into  the  train  yesterday. 
This  is  a most  lovel)  place,  but  the  wealhei  is  dreadful.  At  the 
present  moment  1 am  still  lying  in  bed  alter  bieakfast  and  writing 
letters. 

I couldn’t  say  to  you  all  I felt  of  gratitude  a^d  deep  aflcction. 
It  has  leally  been  very  nice,  in  spite  of  the  circumstances,  to  spend 
five  WToks  together. 

I have  been  made  vciy  miserable  this  mouiing  by  beaiing  [from 
his  brothel  ] that  Bekiassy  has  been  killed.  I le  fell  in  t)ie  Bukenina  on 
June  25th  after  only  fcmi  days’  fighting.  Of  inv  jiaity  at  Everlcigh  — 
it  seems  only  the  other  day-  - thiee  an*  now  gone. 

Thereafter  he  made  rapid  progress  in  the  Treasury.  Sir  Otto 
Niemeyer  and  Sir  Richard  Hopkins  contributed  the  following 
account  to  the  obituary  notice  which  w^as  published  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  British  Academy : 

Once  tlieie,  his  quick  mind  and  inc'xhaustiblc  capacity  for  work 
rapidly  maikcd  out  a kingdom  for  itself,  and  before  long  he  was  a 
leading  authority  on  all  questions  of  external,  and  particularly  inter- 
allied, finance.  It  would  be  untrue  to  attriliute  to  him  the  sub- 
stitution of  loans  to  the  Allies  for  the  time-honoured  British  practice 
of  outright  war  subsidies  : that  had  already  been  decided  in  the  early 
days  of  the  war  in  consequence  of  the  special  relations  between  the 
U.K.  and  the  Dominions,  who  were  the  earliest  borrowers,  and  of 
the  pride  of  the  main  allied  borrower,  France.  But  it  w^as  Keynes 
who  developed  and  applied  the  system  of  allied  war  loans,  largely 
from  the  angle  of  control  over  the  use  of  these  borrowings  and  its 
relation  to  our  own  needs  and  orders  for  material.  When  America 


aet.  32]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  203 

came  into  the  war,  the  American  Treasury  found  the  system  fully 
fledged  and  itself  adopted  a similar  practice.  Equally  absorbing 
was  his  interest  in  the  provision  of  foreign  exchange  resources  for 
U.K.  expenditure  abroad.  Keynes  took  an  active  part  both  inside 
the  Treasury  and  in  the  periodical  discussions  on  this  subject  with 
the  Allies  before  the  entrance  of  America  into  the  w^ar.  Many  stories 
are  told  of  his  resource  in  the  frequent  moments  of  stress.  One  may 
be  repeated  here.  There  was  urgent  need  for  Spanish  pesetas.  With 
difficulty  a smjillish  sum  was  raked  up.  Keynes  duly  reported  this, 
and  a relieved  Secretary  to  the  Treasury  remarked  that  at  any  rate 
for  a short  time  we  had  a supply  of  pesetas.  “ Oh  no  ! ” said  Keynes. 

“ What ! ” said  his  horrified  chief.  “ Tve  sold  them  all  again  : Tm 
going  to  break  the  rnaikct.”  And  he  did. 

The  point  about  the  “control  over  the  use  of  these  borrowings” 
should  be  noticed.  This  was  a new  departure.  The  historic 
loans  by  Britain  to  her  Allies  w^ere  spent  by  them  at  their  own 
discretion.  On  this  occasion  the  magnitude  of  the  loans  and 
Keynfs’  eye  for  detail  combined  to  bring  about  new  methods, 
whereby  the  items  on  wdiich  the  money  was  spent  were  under 
observation  and  contnjl.  It  was  natural  that,  when  in  due  course 
the  United  States  proceeded  to  advance  money  to  Britain,  she 
should  copy  our  system  of  control.  Alas,  the  second  world  disaster 
has  renewed  the  need  for  advances,  subject  to  control,  and  they 
are  still  (1950)  proceeding.  Among  his  many  contributions  to 
practical  economies  it  must  unhappily  be  reckoned  that  he  was 
the  father  of  such  jjystcms  of  control. 

In  the  early  stages  he  was  working  in  close  collaboration  with 
Blackett.  He  soon  bet  arne  the  authority  in  chief  for  the  matters 
referred  to  in  the  foregoing  extract.  The  Treasury  had  a tradition 
of  devolving  responsibility  upon  younger  men.  Mr.  Dudley 
Ward,  w^ho  was  below  Keynes  in  the  hierarchy,  recalls  that  at  one 
time  he  was  summoned  by  Robert  Chalmers,  then  Joint  Secretary 
to  the  Treasury,  who  informed  him  that  he  was  too  busy  to  attend 
to  all  details  and  would  countersign  Ward’s  decisions  without 
study.  If  mistakes  were  made,  Chalmers  would  take  the  blame. 
But  if  a serious  mistake  was  made,  Ward  would  be  assigned  to 
another  department ! Thus  Keynes  soon  acquired  ultimate 
responsibility  for  these  grave  matters.  He  was  allowed  direct 
access  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  Early  in  1917  his 
province  was  carved  out  of  No.  I Division  and  transformed  into 
a separate  “ A ” Division. 


204  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1915 

On  the  outbreak  of  the  Second  World  War  Keynes  sent  Sir 
Frederick  Phillips  an  interesting  note  on  exchange  policy  during 
the  first : 

In  the  last  war  there  was  no  exchange  control  as  such,  apart 
from  import  licences,  restrictions  on  foreign  investment,  etc.  The 
procedure  adopted  was  analogous  to  that  of  the  Exchange  Equalisa- 
tion Fund  before  the  war.  That  is  to  say,  theie  were  free  dealings 
over  the  exchange  at  a rate  which  was  “ pegged  ” by  the  Treasury, 
unlimited  dollars  being  supplied  at  this  rate.  The  only  difference 
was  that  the  pegging  was  done  in  New  York  and  not  in  London,  the 
dollars  being  supplied  l)y  Morgans’  as  our  agents.  E.  C'.  Grenfell 
would  come  round  to  the  Treasury  each  morning  wuth  a pink  cable 
in  his  hand,  showing  what  had  been  paid  out  on  the  pievious 
day. 

Complete  control  was  so  much  against  the  spirit  of  the  age  that 
I doubt  if  it  ever  occurred  to  any  of  us  that  it  w as  pt^ssible.  But  the 
absence  of  it  made  my  task  of  pi  cpaiing  a monthly  budget  of  the  dollar 
position  very  precarious.  I used  to  obtain  each  month  an  estimate 
from  the  vaiious  departments  and  fiom  the  allies  both  of  then  total 
outstanding  dollar  commilments  and  of  the  aipounts  which  the> 
expected  to  mature  in  each  month.  1 o this,  if  1 Temernber  rightly, 
I added  my  own  estimate  of  the  piobable  icquirements  ol  the  “ free 
exchange  On  the  other  side,  our  dollar  assets,  actual  and  pro- 
spective, weie  set  out  in  the  shape  of  gold  and  secuiilies  and  the 
pjocceds  of  loans.  But  the  requirements  of  the  “free  exchange” 
would  c ome  irregularly  in  grcjit  rushc's,  just  like  the  demands  on  the 
Equalisation  Fund,  laigcly  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  war  and 
political  news.  I remember  in  particular  a terrific  run  at  the  end  of 
1916,  when  the  daily  requirement  (if  my  memory  is  correc  t)  ran  for 
a short  time  in  excess  of  $5,000,000,  which  in  those  days  wc  con- 
sidered simjily  terrific.  Chalmers  and  Bradbury  never  fully  confessed 
to  Ministers  the  extent  of  oui  extremity  when  it  was  actually  upon  us, 
though  of  course  they  had  warned  them,  fully  but  unavailingly, 
months  beforehand  of  what  was  coming.  This  was  because  they 
feared  that,  if  they  emphasised  the  leal  position,  the  policy  of  the  peg 
might  be  abandoned,  which,  they  thought,  would  be  disastrous. 
They  had  been  brought  up  in  the  doctrine  that  in  a run  one  must  pay 
out  one’s  gold  reserve  to  the  last  bean.  I thought  then,  and  I still 
think,  that  in  the  circumstances  they  wci  c right.  To  have  abandoned 
the  peg  would  have  destroyed  our  credit  and  brought  chaos  to  busi- 
ness ; and  would  have  done  no  real  good.  I recall  an  historic 
occasion  a day  or  two  after  the  formation  of  the  second  coalition 
government  at  the  end  of  1916.  The  position  was  very  bad.  We  in 


AET.  32] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


205 

the  Treasury  were  all  convinced  that  the  only  hope  was  to  pay  out 
and  trust  that  the  drain  would  suddenly  dry  up  as  it  had  on  previous 
occasions.  But  we  had  no  confidence  in  the  understanding  of 
Ministers.  Chalmers  went  over  to  Carson’s  room  (my  memory  tells 
me  that  it  was  in  the  War  Office ; was  it  ?)  to  report  to  the  newly 
formed  War  Cabinet.  “ Well,  Chalmeis,  what  is  the  news?  ” said 
the  Goat.  “ Splendid,”  Chalmers  replied  in  his  high  quavering  voice ; 
‘‘  two  days  ago  we  had  to  pay  out  $20,000,000  ; the  next  day  it  was 
$10,000,000;  and  yesterday  only  $5,000,000.”  He  did  not  add 
that  a continuance  at  this  rate  for  a week  would  clean  us  out  com- 
pletely, and  that  we  considered  that  an  average  of  $2,000,000  very 
heavy.  I waited  nervously  in  his  room,  until  the  old  fox  came  back 
triumphant.  In  fact  the  drain  did  dry  up  almost  immediately  and 
we  dragged  along  with  a week  or  two’s  cash  in  hand  until  Mai  ch  191 7 
when  U.S.A.  came  in  and  that  problem  was  over.  So  far  as  I know, 
the  Gc?mam  were  totally  unaware  of  our  financial  difficultiejt  But 
the  American  Government,  of  couise,  knew  them.  It  has  been  an 
important  part  of  the  case  of  the  leccnt  Nye  Committee  for  denying 
credits  to  belligerents  that  Mi.  Page  cabled  to  his  government  as 
follows  on  Maich  5th,  1917:  “1  think  that  the  pressure  of  this 
appioaching  crisis  has  gone  beyond  the  ability  of  the  Morgan  finan- 
cial agency  for  the  British  and  French  Governments.  Perhaps  our 
going  to  war  is  the  only  way  in  whiih  our  present  prominent  trade 
position  can  be  maintained  and  panic  averted.” 

On  the  other  hand,  rny  monthly  estimates  were  s«ivcd  by  the  fact 
that,  as  a result  of  delays  in  deliveiies,  the  departments  and  the 
Allies  never  succeeded  anv where  near  in  spending  up  to  their  fore- 
casts. At  thi  end  of  the  war  quite  a signifiCiint  part  of  the  orders 
placed  l)y  LI.  G.  and  Russia  in  tlie  summer  of  1915  were  still  un- 
delivered ; and  there  were  still  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  of 
these  old  orders  outst  ’Tiding  w^hen  we  were  cleaned  out  in  March 
1917  and  the  American  'Treasury  had  to  foot  the  bill.^ 

These  reminiscences  are  not  meant  to  be  wholly  irrelevant.  It  is 
true  that  in  one  important  respect  our  problem  then  w^as  different. 
Foreign  balances  in  London  wxre  insignificant  and  were  greatly  out- 
weighed by  what  foreigners  owed  us  on  acceptance  credits.  The 
financial  crisis  of  1914  was  due,  not  to  our  being  unable  to  pay  what 
we  owed  abroad,  but  to  foreigners  being  unable  to  pay  us.  It  was 
not  sterling  which  crashed  in  that  month,  but  the  dollar  (which  went 
temporarily  over  6 to  the  £).  But  by  1916  the  difference  between 
the  position  then  and  the  position  now  was  not  so  fundamental. 

It  is,  therefore,  well  to  remember  that  we  did  get  through  after  a 

* I have  depended  wholly  on  my  memory,  unrefreshed  doeuments,  in  writing 
the  above,  and  it  is  probably  inaccurate  in  detail.  (Note  by  J.  M.  K.) 


2o6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1915 

fashion  without  blocking  the  exchanges;  and  this  policy  was  not 

without  considerable  advantages  of  simplicity  and  efficiency. 

The  work  was  extremely  exacting.  It  does  not  seem  to  have 
given  rise  to  major  political  or  inter-departmental  crises.  All 
went  forward  smoothly.  It  is  a happy  nation  that  has  no  history. 
And  if  this  was  so,  we  may  be  justified  in  attributing  it  to  Keynes’ 
commanding  ability.  The  issues  were  all  sorted  out  in  that 
clever  brain  of  his,  rather  than  at  the  committee  table.  He 
always  saw  several  moves  ahead  and  thus  prevented  a crisis 
developing  which  might  give  rise  to  inter-depaitmental  or  political 
acrimony. 

There  have  been  men  of  ripe  judgment  who  affiimed  that 
Keynes  contributed  more  than  any  other  person  in  civil  life  to 
winning  the  First  World  War.  Thi^  proposition  is  carried  easily 
on  a gust  of  enthusiasm,  and  it  has  been  applied  to  moic  than  one 
person.  The  fact  remains  that  all  w'ho  had  any  knowledge  of 
these  matters  were  united  in  piaising  Keanes’  gieat  efficiency; 
much  as  he  has  been  criticised  on  other  counts,  I have  iound  no 
criticism  of  this  phase. 

From  one  point  ol  view  this  was  the  height  of  his  career. 
Never  again  in  his  life  did  he  occupy  a position  of  major  adminis- 
trative responsibility.  Some  will  value  his  thought  and  writing 
more  highly.  Those  who  ha\e  greater  regaid  for  practical  ability 
and  prefer  action  to  theorising  should  guc  Keynes  the  highest 
honours.  He  occupied  the  key  position  at  what  was  without 
challenge  the  centre  of  the  inter-allied  c(  oiiomic  cffoit,  he  thought 
out  the  policy,  and  in  eflccl  bore  the  ultimate  lesponsibility  for 
the  decisions  and  carried  the  business  foiwaid  with  a success 
that  was  universally  acclaimed. 

After  the  war  was  over  and  he  had  lesigned  and  written  his 
polemic  against  the  Peace  Tieaty,  he  was  foi  a time  in  bad  odour 
among  grave  persons.  Rut  his  point  of  \iew  gained  ground 
quickly,  and  it  began  to  be  said  that,  after  all,  he  was  in  the 
right.  This  gave  rise  to  an  uneasy  attitude  towards  him.  Accord- 
ingly a dictum  was  coined,  which  was  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth  at  the  Club  and  the  dinner-table  and  became  the  correct 
thing  to  say  about  him  in  a wide  circle  of  people,  who  had  no 
real  knowledge  of  the  matter.  It  became  in  fact  a cliche.  “ Keynes 
is,  of  course,  a most  brilliant  man,  and  the  right  way  to  treat  him 
is  to  pick  his  brains ; then  he  can  be  most  useful : but  you  must 
never  put  him  in  a responsible  position,  because  he  will  let  his 


AET  32] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


!107 

enthusiasm  carry  him  off  the  rails,”  As  is  so  often  the  case  with 
sayings  that  become  fashionable,  this  was  the  exact  opposite  of 
the  truth.  It  was  the  symptom  of  an  unresolved  conflict  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  wished  to  give  it  currency.  One  had  to 
condemn  him  for  wilting  the  book  and  yet  applaud  what  was  in  it. 

To  pick  his  brains  was  by  no  means  an  easy  matter,  and  the 
attempt  to  do  so  could  easily  lead  to  unfortunate  onsequences. 
On  a great  occasion,  when  he  knew  that  he  had  to  make  his  case 
and  persuade  his  audience,  he  had  an  inexhaustible  reserve  of 
fluency,  of  apt  illustiation  and  \aried  aiguinent,  that  placed  him 
in  the  highest  lank  of  advocates.  But  in  the  ordinary  course  o( 
discussion  he  often  attnbuted  !o  his  inU ilocutors  his  own  cjuick 
powers  of  apprehension.  If  he  put  an  argument  111  a foim  that 
was  cogent  and  decisive,  he  thought  no  moie  need  be  said,  he 
assumed  that  the  point  had  been  taken  , he  did  not  think  it 
necessaiy  to  1 estate  it  in  a numbci  of  difkicnt  foiins,  cnibioidci 
It.  give  It  illustrations,  lestatc  it  in  a wav  that  would  appeal  to 
picjudice.  lie  usc'd  economy  of  uticiaiict  If  a statement  was 
cogent  in  it'jelf,  it  did  not  need  fuither  dicssmg.  Ihe  best  years 
of  Ins  own  life  had  been  given  to  the  study  of  logu , and  this  was 
the  consequence  Ihus  those  pundits  who  talked  with  satisfai  tun 
of  picking  his  biains  were  often  quite  me  apable  of  doing  so  They 
appreciated  that  what  he  was  sa)ing  was  clever,  but  often  missed 
the  essential  logical  link,  and,  when  thev  came  away  from  their 
dinner  con^uitulalmg  themselves  on  then  evening  - “ Kevnes  is 
a most  mtcic  mg  fellow”  thc*y  may  have  altogc'lhci  failed 
to  learn  the  lesson  he  denned  to  impart.  Lven  in  his  elaborate 
writings  he  sufleied  mi  h from  misunderstanding. 

But  when  he  was  a position  of  le'^ponsibility  himself,  he 
had  a superb  capacity  foi  picking  the  biains  of  other'*  When  in 
the  presence  of  one  who  knew  his  subjec  t,  he  was  completely 
modest.  He  sat  watching  with  his  steady,  seaichinc*  eyes,  ten- 
tacles seemed  to  go  out  111  qu<*st  of  any  weak  spot,  any  falsity  in 
his  interlocutor,  any  a>e  he  had  to  grind  He  absorbed  all  good 
mfoimation  readily,  welcoming  it  from  the  humblest  source,  and 
knew  how  to  reject  the  shoddy.  In  the  quest  foi  truth  he  was 
essentially  j'udicial.  Theie  was  none  of  the  self-importance,  of 
the  reluctance  to  discard  a view  that  has  become  associated  with 
one’s  ego,  of  the  tenor  of  renouncing  what  one  has  committed 
oneself  to  in  public,  which  are  the  besetting  sins  of  great  persons. 

It  was  only  in  the  case  of  theorists,  whose  logic  he  felt  well 


208  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [19x5 

able  to  judge  for  himself^  or  of  pompous  people,  or  of  the  self- 
opinionated,  to  whom  we  must  in  truth  add  the  long-winded, 
that  he  became  impatient  and  snapped  them  off  with  a sudden 
rudeness.  Did  not  these  rare  qualities  fit  him  for  responsible 
positions  and  final  decisions  ? 

In  the  one  great  administrative  position  he  held  during  his  life 
there  was  no  question  of  his  being  carried  away  by  enthusiasm 
or  of  going  off  the  rails.  Clever  as  his  diagnosis  was,  its  value 
was  greatly  enhanced  if  he  wa?  in  a position  to  put  it  into  effect 
himself. 

There  is  another  piece  of  interesting  evidence  on  this  point. 
In  the  case  of  his  financial  activities,  which  developed  when  the 
war  was  over,  whenever  he  was  the  sole  autocrat,  as  in  the  case 
of  his  private  investments  and  in  that  of  the  finances  of  King’s 
College  — where  the  Estates  Committee  gave  him  a fairly  free 
hand  — he  achieved  spectacular,  almost  magical,  success.  But 
when,  as  in  certain  companies,  he  had  to  carry  partners  or  co- 
directors with  him,  results  wcie  sometimes  unsatisfai  tcry  or 
doubtful. 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  English  have  sorae  mistrust  of  clever 
people.  By  a happy  chain  of  accidents  this  clever  one  was  placed 
where  he  could  render  vital  service  in  the  first  war.  Some  credit 
for  his  promotion  must  be  given  to  the  high  traditions  and  intel- 
lectual eminence  of  the  British  Trcasui}  at  that  time. 

2 

For  Britain  the  First  World  War  was  in  some  ways  grimmer 
than  the  Second.  There  was  not  the  danger  from  continuous 
air-raids,  there  did  not  seem  to  be  so  great  a risk  of  defeat,  and 
Kaiser  Wilhelm  was  not  such  a black  fiend  as  Adolf  Hitler ; there 
was  not,  at  least  until  the  last  eighteen  months,  the  same  austerity 
of  living ; but  there  were  more  widows  and  mothers  that  lacked 
sons.  Perils  could  be  borne  with  courage;  the  long  casualty 
lists  were  facts,  and  the  burden  of  sorrow  was  heavy. 

None  the  less,  life  had  to  proceed  day  by  day,  and  its  character 
was  determined  then,  as  always,  by  what  was  physically  possible. 
In  this  case  it  was  possible  to  maintain  many  of  the  social  amenities 
and  amusements  of  peace-time.  The  black-out  was  sketchy, 
theatres  were  open  till  late,  and  provisions  remained  in  fair  supply. 
Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  static  front-line  was  so  deadly  and  so 


AET  32] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


209 

near  at  hand  made  the  constant  return  oi  troops  on  leave  more 
charged  with  emotion  and  a more  prominent  feature  in  daily 
life  The  home  country  had  to  maintain  good  cheer  on  their 
account ; thev  must  be  greeted  with  gaiety  and  dancing.  The 
hideous  word  goodby-ee  ’ was  iii\cnled  to  mask  the  tragedy 
implicit  in  the  simple  ‘‘  good-bye 

There  were  othei  reasons  also  why  Keynes,  despae  his  heavy 
load  of  woik  at  the  Iieasury,  despite  the  (xhaustion  which  some- 
times kept  him  for  a day  m b d and  despite  In^  keen  sense  of 
the  horror  and  tragedy  of  it  all,  found  social  life  beginning  to  flow 
m new  streams  He  was  now  < ontiruously  in  1 ondon  for  the  first 
time  since  his  hiict  sojo  11  n at  the  India  Office  llloomslmry  was 
tending  to  break  up  under  the  pressure  of  events , thcie  aie  purists 
who  sav  that  when  the  friends  resumed  the  hie  of  peice  after 
1918,  Bloumsbuiv,  clc  pitc  its  gicatd  Known  it  diis  lat(  t period, 
never  regained  Us  piistmc  clan  Meanwhile  in  1915  there  weic 
new  faces,  new  \oung  Indies,  voungcr  young  lache  1 heie  was 
Faith  jBagcnal,  an  c\-^tucleut  of  Newnham,  who  w is  sof)n  to  marry 
Hubert  Hendeison,  tlic  eumomist  She  shaied  roc^ms  with 
Baibaia  Hilcs,  a Slade  student,  who  was  a litih  fatci  to  marry 
taith’s  biothcr  Ihcie  weri  ( arrmgtoii  and  Biett,  Barbara's 
fellow -Student's  at  the  Slide  Aiiothoi  fiund  was  \h\  Sirgant- 
Horencc,  who  was  in  due  course  to  many  J inus  Stiachov  and 
aharc  in  his  psychological  a(  tivities  I hose  c nteied  into  lie  stream 
of  Keynes’  life  Baibaia  was  his  favour  it i 

At  the  bcgiiiiimg  of  the  war  the  (‘slabhshmciit  at  Brunswick 
Squaie  was  broken  up  and  Keynes  nioycel  to  jo  Great  Ormond 
Street,  and  llicn  to  Gower  Street,  which  he  shared  with 
Sheppard  and,  at  firs.,  with  Ger  ild  Siove  Sheppard  had 
come  up  to  London  to  serve  at  the  War  OfTiee  Cariington 
and  Brett  were  for  a time  lodgers,  and,  further  aloft,  Middleton 
Murry  and  Kitharme  MansfieM  Lirgc  supper  parties  wire 
organised  hcie  1 he  vciy  yoaug  flowed  in  and  met  the  no  longer 
quite  so  young.  Therv  as  an  atmosphere  of  excitement  and 
exhilaration.  Ihe^rc  weie  feasting  and  danc  mg  and  brilliant  con- 
veisation  and  the  faint  whiff  of  gicat  events  due  to  the  presence 
of  one  who  was  known  to  be  at  the  centre  ol  the  war  effort. 
Barbara  Hiles  on  her  'jielc  organised  partus  m her  studio  at 
Hampstead,  and  Keynes  gave  little  dmner-paitits  at  the  GaK 
Royal. 

The  young  women  were  struck  by  his  extraordinary  kindness 

P 


210  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1915 

and  attentiveness;  his  brimming  gaiety  and  optimism  seemed 
magical  in  that  grey  world.  There  was  that  special  characteristic 
of  his,  the  gift  of  immersing  himself  completely  in  whatever 
happened  to  be  engaging  his  attention  at  the  moment,  and  if  his 
attention  was  engaged  upon  making  life  more  pleasant  for  these 
young  people,  how  delightful  for  them  ! When  he  talked  of  their 
painting  and  their  gossip,  these  became  the  things  that  mattered 
most  in  the  world,  and  the  war  utterly  unreal.  It  was  delightful 
for  him  too  ; he  was  enjoying  ^his  new  world. 

The  pattern  of  Keynes"  life  is  clear.  As  an  undergraduate 
his  youthliil  friendships  had  been  of  supreme  significance.  It  is 
natural,  and  indeed  right,  that  a young  don  in  his  first  years,  if 
his  studies  do  not  exhaust  all  his  energies,  should  look  upon  the 
undergraduates  of  the  next  generation  as  potenli«il  accessions  to 
his  circle  of  intimates.  The  gulf  ol  yeais  is  not  too  gieat.  We 
have  seen  liow  this  happened.  Norton,  James  Stiachey,  Frankie 
Bin  ell,  and,  in  London,  Duncan  Grant,  and  later  Bunny  Garnett, 
became  no  less  important  than  Lytton  Strachey  and  Woolf.  As 
the  years  proceeded  the  gulf  widened,  although  the  interest  and 
the  ciuest  were  mainlained,  and  we  heai  of  undergraduates  “ whom 
I did  not  know  very  well,  but  was  lond  of Then  there  was  his 
London  life.  But  it  was  biokcn.  He  was  there  for  two  01  three 
days,  then  gone.  He  entered  mto  all  the  doings  and  piojects  and 
gossip  ol  Bloomsbury,  but  he  was  not  resident.  He  spent  much 
of  the  \acations  travelling  abroad.  But  now  he  was  permanently 
lesident  in  London,  and  his  thoughts  and  feelings  began  to  take  a 
new  turn.  There  was  an  element  of  romance.  But  he  was  not 
to  meet  his  destiny  for  some  years  more. 

There  was  anothei  new  sti  and  in  his  social  life.  When  Asquith 
formed  the  first  coalition  government  in  the  spring  of  1915, 
Reginald  McKenna  took  Lloyd  George’s  place  as  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer  and  thereby  as  Keynes’  chief.  McKenna  was  a 
man  of  considerable  intelligence,  and  his  good  grasp  of  finance 
was  manifested,  not  only  in  his  work  as  Chancelloi,  but  also  in 
his  subsequent  speeches  to  the  Midland  Bank,  which  have  an 
important  place  in  the  literature  of  the  period  and  influenced 
thought  on  monetary  policy.  Keynes  soon  came  to  be  on  intimate 
terms  with  his  chief.  The  McKennas  were  close  friends  of  the 
Asquiths,  with  whom  Keynes  also  had  contact  through  Lady 
Ottoline  MorrclJ.  Her  house  at  Garsington  was  not  far  from  the 
country  home  of  the  Asquiths,  The  Wharf,  Sutton  Courtney. 


ABT  3*]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  2ii 

Before  long  we  find  Keynes  frequently  staying  for  week-ends  with 
the  McKennas  or  the  Asquiths,  and  he  appears  to  have  been 
adopted  by  them  quickly  as  an  intimate.  This  was  another  kind 
of  intellectual  circle,  and  it  was  a brilliant  one.  There  was 
Asquith,  a scholar  as  well  as  a statesman,  with  his  fine  level  judg- 
ment, and  there  was  his  wile,  Margot,  with  her  quickly  flowing 
stream  of  witty  and  whimsical  talk.  KcyiiCN  woi  id  certainly 
meet  his  match  in  the  lightning  speed  of  hci  lapici-like  npostes. 
Her  fancies  were  often  wild  and  wayward,  but  she  was  in  a tradi- 
tion of  fine  cultuie  and  had  been  a membei  of  that  enlu'r  circle, 
the  Souls,  who  weie  prominent  in  London  in  the  ib()o\.  But 
she  was  not  meielv  the  relic  of  a bygone  age.  Ihe  Ascjuiths 
maintained  a lively  interest  in  the  most  modem  litei  ituie  and 
thought.  Asquith’s  commendation  of  Stiachey's  hminent  \ ittonam 
in  his  Romanes  Lectures  (it)i8)  contiibutcd  to  Us  icccptaiueas  a 
woik  of  major  importance  among  educated  jieojile  far  outside 
the  influence  of  Bloomsbuiv.  No  loiigcT  was  it  uetessaiv  lor 
KeyncS  to  regard  all  politicians  as  people  who  talked  in  private 
life  as  though  they  were  on  a platform. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs,  Keynes,  26lh  March 

I have  l)cen  leading  such  a gidd\  life  lately  thrit  tliere  has  been 
no  time  to  write  letters, — only  two  e\enings  in  tlic  las*^  fortnight 
when  I haven’t  dined  out 

This  week-  nd  1 am  'laying  with  I idy  jckyll,  the  (»dicr  guests 
being  Mr.  and  Mis  MeKenna,  and  Mr  and  Mis  Runciman 
Unfoi Innately  Me  Keni  i has  been  taken  nitliei  badly  with  influen/a 
and  has  letiied  to  bed.  I-ast  weekend  I went  to  OUohne’s  at  Gai- 
sington.  Sir  John  Simon  came  to  tea  on  Sunday  ...  I’ve  dined 
twice  at  Downing  Str  in  the  last  fortnight,  at  a large  dinner  party 
of  twenty  on  Fiidav  and  at  a small  one  in  the  following  week  L >id 
and  Lady  Waldsleiu  asked  m^*  to  dinner  to  meet  the  American 
Ambassador.  I dined  with  Violet  Asquith  and  her  new  husband  in 
hei  new  house,  her  first  | a ty  in  honour  of  Mai  got ; T ha  ve  delivered 
my  evening  lecture  at  the  Aclmiialty  ; * and  I have  testified  befoic  the 
wicked  leering  faces  of  the  Hampstead  Tiibunal  to  the  genuineness  of 
James’s  conscientious  objections.  Oh,  and  I have  brought  out  the 
March  and  entertained  a Swedish  Professor. 3 So  this  will  be  a 

* An  explanation  of  the  financial  situation  to  the  Board  of  Admiralty  at  Balfour’s 

request.  • 

* Economic  Journal  ^ Knut  Wicksell 


212  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1916 

sufficient  catalogue,  on  the  top  of  my  work  officially  so  called,  to 
justify  poor  letter  writing. 

I thought  the  interview  with  yourself,  which  you  sent  me,  very 
well  done.  Who  wrote  it  ? 

I see  that  God  has  been  sti iking  dead  several  members  of  the 
Cambiidgc  Tribunal.  ...  I hope  public  opinion  is  keeping  them 
reasonably  just.  Lytton  has  got  off  altogether  on  grounds  of  health 
and  James  got  “ non-combatant  ”.  Duncan’s  case  hasn’t  come  on 
yet. 


J.  M,  Keynes  io  Mis.  Keynes,  syth  May  i()i6 

Walter  ^ tapped  me  over,  thinks  there  may  peihaps  be  a slight 
adhesion  to  tlie  scar  and  gave  me  a tonic. 

This  has  been  a most  gloiious  and  l^eaiitifiil  week-end,  and  also  a 
very  interesting  one.  Into  a nest  of  rebels,  Philip  Snowden,  Massing- 
ham,  Bertie  Russell,  Lytton  Strachev,  the  Morrells,  two  young  ladies 
fiom  the  Slade  and  me,  who  are  the  house  party,  (‘ntei  this  afternoon 
the  Prime  A^inister,  Sir  Matthew  Nathan,  Lady  Robert  CeVil  and 
Lady  Meux,  - a queer  mix-up. 

J.  M.  Keynes  la  Mis.  Keynes^  lyih  November  igi6 

. . Last  Scwfiday  ev(‘ning  a very  bad  feveiish  (old  carnc  on, 
which  kept  me  in  bed  all  Monday.  The  lever  pc'isisted  all  Monday 
night,  but  abated  on  Tuesday  morning,  so  that  I went  to  the  office. 
Until  (o-d<i),  however,  1 felt  wretched  and  not  able  to  work  nearly 
fast  enough  to  keep  lev('l  with  riiy  papers.  Short  of  not  going  to  the 
office,  I’ve  taken  great  care  of  myself,  sailing  everywhere  in  taxis  and 
taking  to  my  bed  when  not  at  the  office,  with  the  result  that  to-day 
strength  has  re-entered  my  limbs. 

The  party  was  a great  success,  and  we  sat  down  thii  ty  to  supper 
without  being  overcrowded.  J hope  all  looked  cheerful  when  your 
ghost  peeped  in. 

I shall  not  be  at  Cambridge  this  week-end  as  I am  staying  with 
Margot  (Oxfordshire). 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mis.  Keyn^s^  i8lh  January  jgiy 

Last  week  I stayed  with  the  McKennas  and  the  week  before  that 
with  the  Asquiths,  — so  I have  been  seeing  my  old  friends  again.  . . . 

* His  uncle,  Su  , Walter  Langclon-Biowii,  late  Regius  Proftssor  of  Physic  at 

Cambridge. 


aet.32]  first  world  war  213 

In  January  1916  Asquith’s  Government  introduced  compul- 
sory military  service,  with  a conscience  clause.  It  has  to  be 
recorded  that  many  of  Keynes’  most  intimate  friends  of  the 
Bloomsbury  circle  were  Conscientious  Objectors.  Their  position 
was  a difficult  one.  They  did  not  belong  to  any  religious  sect 
with  an  injunction  against  taking  life;  it  is  not  even  dear  that 
they  had  an  objection  to  taking  life  in  an'^  (ircuinst*  iiccs.  Their 
individual  views  diffeied  from  one  anothei,  but  some  rough 
outline  may  be  attempted. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  they  were  people  t)f  serious  pur- 
pose, who  had  set  befoi  c themselves  cci  tain  standards  of  behaviour. 
Precisely  because  they  lacked  any  definite  leligious  ciecd,  they 
adhered  with  a ceitain  intensity  to  their  own  notions;  the 
philosophy  whirh  each  had  formed  for  himself  called  forth  those 
urges  which  in  olliei  cases  find  vent  in  religious  oliscrvance. 
Thus  they  felt  themselves  unalile  to  fall  into  line  with  public 
opinion,  as  does  the  man  in  the  stieel,  when  an  cmergeiu}  occurs. 
Fighting  was  no  part  of  iheir  need.  'lhe>  hacl  not  taken  much 
mteiest  in  clomestir  politic  % still  less  in  the  giimmei  aspects  of 
foreign  aflaiis.  Thcii  values  were  sudi  as  to  make  them  distrust 
anv  government.  It  ma\  be  said  tlnit  tlu'  wai  took  them  b)  sur^ 
piise.  England  had  been  at  peace  for  a hundicd  >eais,  save  for 
minor  wais,  which  they  would  have  (ondemned  as  manifestations 
of  imperialism.  War  was  a lei  ludc^scence  of  baibaii  ni,  which 
should  siuely  lie  stopped  at  once.  The  aflaiis  of  countries  were 
conductc'd  by  iiien  in  whose  aims  the)  WTic  not  interested,  and 
for  whom  they  had  contempt.  Thev  were  prepared  to  (>bey  the 
law  within  limits  anc^  (omport  themselves  as  well-conducted 
citizens,  but  they  were  iiot  prepared  to  be  “ butdiers  ”. 

Lytton  Stiachey,  carrying  the  matter  fuithci,  is  remembered 
to  have  said  on  moie  than  one  occasion:  “What  difference 
would  it  make  if  the  Germans  ueie  here?  'I  his  did  not  imply 
that  he  did  hot  prefer  the  Biiti  h political  s)stem  to  the  German. 
But,  it  could  be  aiguec’  ’he  diffeience  between  the  two  icgimes 
was  not  sufficient  to  justify  such  fearful  carnage,  leading  on  to 
hatred  and  revenge  and  bitter  grievances  and  a desire  for  further 
revenge,  and  so  from  tiagedy  to  tragedy,  the  tale  of  which  has 
not  yet  been  told.  Of  course,  it  mav  be  said  that  this  judgment 
was  superficial,  for  lac  k of  the  time  dimension,  that  more  regard 
should  have  been  paid  to  history.  It  was  not  only  a question  of 
the  British  system  as  it  was  then  and  of  the  German  system  as  it 


214  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1916 

was  then,  but  of  their  roots  and  probable  development  in  the 
future.  Had  Strarhey  been  alive  twenty-three  years  later,  it 
would  not  have  sounded  so  plausible  had  he  asked,  “ What 
difference  would  it  make  if  Hiller  were  here  ? ” It  should  be  added 
that  some  members  of  Bloomsbury  who  were  still  living  at  the 
time  of  the  Second  World  War  took  a different  attitude  about  it. 

It  may  be  right  to  go  behind  Strachey’s  ad  Aor  judgment  and 
ask  whether  there  was  not  a radical  weakness  in  the  philosophy 
of  these  friends  that  may  be  ^raced  to  G.  E.  Moore’s  teaching. 
We  have  seen  how  sadly  his  book  was  lacking  in  any  adequate 
theory  of  moral  obligation.  His  ideals,  so  persuasively  set  forth, 
floated  in  a void.  One  had  to  seek  those  ideals,  but  little  attention 
was  given  to  the  more  immediate  principles  which  have  to  govern 
action  in  this  troubled  and  irrational  world.  Other  philosophers 
had  laboured  with  these  more  proximate  problems.  Moore 
hardly  appeared  even  to  have  considered  that  problem  which 
obsessed  Hobbes,  namely,  the  inevitability  of  unceitainty  and 
violence  unless  men  subject  themselves  to  social  obligation 
which,  fiom  thcii  own  immediate  point  of  view,  may  seem  quite 
irrational.  This  pioblem  has  claimed  the  •attention  of  moral 
philosophers  evei  since.  In  Moore  there  was  little  trac  c of  thought 
about  it.  His  peisonal  authority,  his  great  array  of  arguments, 
his  finely  wrought  logic  and  his  challenge  to  the  philosophic 
notabilities  of  the  past  concealed  from  his  disciples  this  great  gap 
In  his  armoury.  It  is  still  for  the  future  to  decide  whether  it  was 
right  to  be  a Conscientious  Objector  in  the  First  World  War,  but 
it  is  clear  that  under  Moore’s  guidance  one  might  easily  go  wrong. 
The  sincerity  and  courage  of  this  gioup  are  not  in  question. 

Keynes  himscll  did  not  share  theii  view.  But  it  inevitably 
had  an  important  influence  on  him.  These  weie  people  whose 
opinions  he  valued  and  to  whom  he  was  attached  by  strong  ties 
of  affection.  It  pained  him  to  be  in  imperfect  agreement  with 
them.  They  pressed  him  in  argument,  and,  to  meet  their  case, 
he  made  two  gestures  of  appeasement.  Of  these,  the  first  was  a 
trivial  one,  which  need  not  be  taken  very  seriously.  He  announced 
for  their  benefit  that,  although  he  was  not  a Conscientious  Ob- 
jector, he  would  conscientiously  object  to  compulsory  service. 
Accordingly,  when  he  received  his  calling-up  notice,  he  replied 
on  Treasuiy  writing-paper  that  he  was  too  busy  to  attend  the 
summons.  This  appears  to  have  quelled  the  authorities,  for  he 
was  troubled  by  them  no  more.  On  the  other  hand,  he  did  not 


A11T.32]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  215 

carry  this  policy  through  to  its  final  conclusion,  for  a year  or  two 
later  the  Treasury  discovered  a gap  in  its  records.  In  the  file 
there  was  no  notice  of  exemption  against  his  name.  And  so,  to 
placate  the  Treasury  Establishment  Officer,  he  walked  quietly 
round  and  went  through  the  formalities  of  obtaining  exemption. 

His  second  method  for  meeting  the  views  of  his  friends  was 
a far  more  serious  matter.  “ We  are  in  it  now,”  he  argued,  “ and 
we  must  go  through  with  it;  there  is  really  no  practicable 
alternative.”  He  could  have  shown  that  convincingly  enough. 
“ But  what  we  must  do  is  to  sec  that,  wffien  it  is  all  over,  we  establish 
world  affairs  on  a new  and  better  basis,  so  that  this  shall  not 
happen  again.  May  no  other  generation  live  under  the  cloud  we 
live  under.”  This  w^as  more  than  a gesture ; it  was  a solemn 
pledge.  How  could  he  be  sure  that  any  such  attempt  would  be 
made?  AVell,  he  was  on  intimate  terms  with  tl>e  Prime  A/Jinister, 
Mr.  Asquith,  on  whose  worthy  motives  and  sage  statesmanship 
he  could  implicitly  rely.  And  was  not  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the 
Foreign  Secretary,  a most  high-minded  man  ? He  knew  that  in 
the  minds  of  these  Liberal  leaders  and  in  that  of  Lord  Robert 
Cecil  were  germinating  ideas  wffiich  led  eventually  to  the  concept 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  of  which  President  Woodrow  Wilson’s 
admirers  have  no  right  to  claim  that  he  was  the  sole  inventor. 
All  this  was  in  191 6.  K cynes  was  deeply  immersed  in  war- winning 
activities,  but  he  was  now  solemnly  pledged  to  do  all  that  in  him 
lay  to  secure  a durable  peace  and  a new  pattern  of  international 
relations.  Aru^  while  his  condemnation  in  1919  of  the  Treaty 
of  Versailles  was  warranted  by  the  plain  logic  of  the  facts,  this 
implicit  pledge  contrib  uted  to  his  physical  prostration  when  his 
hopes  had  been  dashed  in  Paris,  and  to  the  passion  and  venom 
with  which  he  penned  his  subsequent  book. 

Meanwhile  he  exerted  himself  to  befriend  those  friends  who 
were  in  trouble.  His  mother  wondered  whether  he  was  not  loo 
lenient  to  them. 


Mrs.  Keynes  to  J.  M.  Keynes^  sgth  March  igi6 

. . . T am  very  glad  that  Lytton’s  physical  disabilities  stood  him 
in  good  stead  for  once  in  compensation  for  past  trials  — and  I am 
glad  that  James  is  allowed  non-combatant  service.  But  whal  about 
his  conscience?  No  doubt  he  could  conscientiously  say  that  he 
hated  the  whole  business ; most  of  us  do.  It  seems  to  me  that  many 


ai6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1916 

of  the  people  who  have  no  conscience  are  now  suffering  so  badly  that 
I begin  to  doubt  whether  in  the  general  torture  that  is  going  on 
conscience  ought  to  put  in  a special  claim  for  consideration.  Don’t 
you  think  it  is  being  a little  coddled  ? Once  the  voluntary  principle 
has  gone,  I really  don’t  see  where  one  can  honestly  and  reasonably 
draw  the  line.  . . . 

Is  there  any  chance  of  your  coming  on  Sunday  week  ? You  will 
see  from  the  al)ovc  that  I really  need  a talk  with  you  to  bring  me 
round  to  a proper  altitude  towards  Conscientious  Objectors.  So  you 
must  not  neglect  me  too  long.  Anyhow  I should  dearly  love  to  see 
you. 

Keynes  knew  that  the  objectors  were  sincere.  He  appeared 
on  several  occasions  at  the  tribunals,  and  on  days  when  his  friends 
had  been  uj)  he  gave  little  dinner-parties  at  the  Cafe  Royal  to 
restore  shattered  ncives. 

At  about  this  time  he  had  a ver)  lucky  escape.  Our  financial 
relations  with  Russia  were  becoming  involved,  and  it  w^as  thought 
that  the  treasury  should  proceed  to  the  stene  of  action.  It 
was  arranged  that  Keynes  should  go  on  the  ship  that  carried 
Kitchener  and  was  sunk.  But  at  the  la^t  miiiutr  i(  seemed  that 
he  could  not  be  spared  from  his  heavy  duties  in  la)ndon. 


M7S,  jSnwt  fo  J,  M.  Keynes^  (ith  June  i()iG 

It  was  a horrible  sliot'k  to  hear  of  the  Hampshire  disaster  and  to 
know  that  you  missed  it  by  so  little  ! 1 could  haidly  ])!(  atho  when  1 
realised  it  first.  . . . And  it  w^as  y oui  bii  thday.  Oh  how  thankful 
wc  are  that  you  weie  celebrating  it  by  making  presents  to  those 
picturesque  deputations. 

Later  in  the  year  Gower  Street  was  given  up  and  Keynes 
moved  into  that  46  Gordon  Square  which  had  l:>cen  taken  by 
the  Stephen  family  twelve  years  before.  Clive  and  Vanessa  Bell 
and  Duncan  Grant  retained  some  accommodation  in  it,  but  were 
mainly  absent  during  the  war;  Keynes  brought  Sheppard  and 
Harry  Norton  to  share  it  with  him.  This  remained  his  London 
residence  for  the  rest  of  his  life. 

Another  domestic  change  occurred  at  this  time,  the  acquisition 
of  a house.  Charleston,  near  Lewes  in  Sussex.  It  nestles  under 
the  northern  slope  of  the  South  Downs  in  a rich,  unspoiled  country, 
with  fine  trees,  pretty  old  villages  and  abundant  agriculture.  It 
was  easily  accessible  for  Londoners,  being  a few  miles  from  Lewes, 


AET  33]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  217 

which  was  reached  by  the  express  fiom  London  in  an  hour.  The 
Woolfs  had  already  established  themselves  in  the  neighbourhood 
at  a house  called  Asheham.  Mr,  Leonaid  Woolf  recalls  how,  when 
Keynes  stayed  with  him  at  this  time,  the  e\piess  train  was  some- 
times stopped  at  Rodmell-Southease  Halt  to  enable  him  to  mount 
it.  The  piiniary  purpose  o(  C4haileston  was  to  piovide  a eountiy 
home  wliere  Duncan  Grant  and  David  Gainett  fwiio  had  done 
Fiiends’  Ambulance  woik  in  liancc,  along  with  Frankie  Birrell, 
in  the  earhci  pait  of  the  wai)  (oulcl  dischaigc  their  obligations 
undei  the  National  Service  Act  by  doing  agiicultuial  labour. 
This  became  Kevnes’  principal  pi  ice  of  lefuge  in  the  country, 
both  cluiing  the  wai  and  lor  some  sears  afteiwaids,  until,  01  his 
marriage,  he  found  a house  lor  himself  (Tilton)  a lew  hundred 
vards  away.  The  Bells  also  tock  up  icsidencr  at  Chaileston. 


Af,  K()n(s  to  M)s.  Knnes^  ji)1h  Octohii  igif) 

• 

1 took  the  oppoitumts  to  come  dcj\Mi  to  Duncan’s  new 
countn  house  It’s  a most  loveH  place,  a faimhouse  of  vci\  con- 
siderable si/f  with  a walled  gaidcn  and  a large  pond  on  the  edge  ol 
the  downs  w^hich  rise  straight  up  to  liile  Beacon  However  ihe 
weather  has  })cen  so  abominable  and  the  country  so  waterlogged, 
that  1 have  scaicel>  tiken  the  ncnrhboiiihood  in  >t't  We’ie  only  a 
few  miles  horn  I ew^  s and  frc*m  Asheham  wheu  1 have  staved  many 
times 

Last  mghl  M^s  Garnett  was  here  She  told  me  that  she  last  aw 
lather  when  he  was  about  my  age.  He  had  veiy  blue  c\es  and 
was  alwa>s  smiling  You  wmc  “scienc”.  When  you  became 
engaged  people  said  tijat  it  was  x git  at  wa>te  for  two  to  marry  who 
both  had  such  perfec  tly  good  tempers.  “ when  they  might  have  made 
two  homes  happy 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  Airs,  Ktj*u^,  6th  May  iqiy 

Last  week  1 took  Saturday  oil  and  spent  a long  week-end  at 
Duncan’s  farm  in  Sussex,  enjoying  the  weather  immensely  and  even 
digging  potatoes  with  a view  to  the  improvement  of  my  figure  This 
week  1 have  stayed  quietly  here,  giving  a luncheon  party  to-day  to 
Massingham,  Dickinson  and  Sheppard. 

Work  has  not  been  overwhelmingly  heavy  and  the  negotiations 
with  the  U.S.,  which  occupy  a good  deal  of  my  time,  arc  going 


2i8  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1917 

extremely  well.  If  all  happens  as  we  wish,  the  Yanks  ought  to 
relieve  me  of  some  of  the  most  troublesome  of  my  work  for  the  future. 
Relations  with  Russia  on  the  other  hand  are  not  what  they  should  be. 
That’s  a piece  of  diplomacy  over  which  we  have  blundered  hope- 
lessly, with  our  ridiculous  tears  for  the  Tsar  and  the  rest  of  it. 

Another  move  may  be  mentioned.  In  the  later  part  of  1917 
a scheme  was  hatched  for  taking  a house  in  the  country,  called 
Tidmarsh,  near  Pangbourne,  to  be  a haven  for  war-wcary  workers 
at  week-ends.  At  the  root  of  the  pioject  was  the  somewhat  forlorn 
condition  of  Lylton  Strachey,  who  was  of  precarious  health  and 
still  very  hard  up.  It  was  felt  that  he  should  have  a comfortable 
place  for  continuous  work.  Carrington  and  Barbara  Hiles  threw 
themselves  into  this  plan  and  undertook  to  look  after  the  domestic 
side ; they  made  Keynes  promise  to  watch  the  finances.  Lytton 
Strachey,  Oliver  Strachey,  Harry  Norton,  Saxon  Sydney-Turner 
and  Keynes  each  put  up  £20  a year.  This  was  in  effect  a sub- 
sidy to  Lytton,  since  he  was  expected  to  be  there  all  the  time, 
while  the  others  would  go  for  occasional  week-ends.  Carrington 
remained  in  lesidencc  to  run  the  house,  and  this  \^s  the  beginning 
of  her  association  with  Lytton  Strachey,  which  was  not  broken 
by  her  marriage.  She  moved  with  him  later  to  Hamspray,  a 
house  near  Hungerford  in  Wiltshire,  and  they  remained  together 
till  their  death.  ^ 

Lady  Ottoline  MonellS  house  at  Gar^ington  was  also  a great 
haven  during  the  war,  and  some  Conscientious  Objectors  resided 
there  for  a period. 

At  the  end  of  1916  Lloyd  George  took  Asquith’s  place  as 
Prime  Minister.  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  manoeuvres 
by  which  that  change  was  brought  about.  Keynes’  work  at 
the  Treasury  was  not  adversely  affected  by  it ; indeed  it  was 
shortly  after  this  that  “ A ’’  Division  was  given  a form  which 
lasted  till  the  end  of  the  war.^  But  in  a more  general  sense  the 
change  was  a set-back,  since  Keynes  had  established* a close  intel- 
lectual understanding  with  Asquith.  His  mind  was  not  of  a temper 
to  be  impressed  by  Lloyd  George’s  wizard  powers,  which  he 
recognised,  and  he  felt  the  lack  of  Asquith’s  steady  intellectual 
quality.  Moreover,  for  one  whose  feelings,  although  not  his 
thoughts,  were  centred  on  what  was  to  come  afterwards,  the  change 
was  likely  to  arouse  misgivings.  He  was  always  critical  of  the 


* Vide  supra,  p.  189. 


‘ Vide  supra,  p.  203. 


first  world  war  219 

powers-that-be,  but  in  the  succeeding  period  his  criticisms  became 
more  acid. 

Not  much  importance  need  be  attached  to  the  following 
misadventure. 


J,  M,  Keyves  to  Mis,  Keynts^  i ith  febiuaiy  igiy 

I was  approved  and  included  in  the  final  li  t lo  get  a G B. 
this  honours  list  But  when  Lloyd  George  saw  it  he  took  his  pen 
and  struck  my  name  out,  — an  unheaid  of  proceeding  Purely 
revenge  for  the  McKenna  War  Council  Memoianda  against  him,  of 
which  he  knows  1 was  the  authoi  Ch«ilineis  is  vc^ry  angry  and  has 
been  very  nice  about  it  I can’t  s ly  that  I care  appreciably.  But 
you  won’t  see  my  name  in  tomorrow’s  list  llowevei  (paitly  1 
suspect  to  cancel  the  above)  1 have  got  a muc  h inoie  solid  xdvantage 
in  these  last  few  days,  having  been  piopeily  constituted  head  ol  a 
new  Dept , with  a stafl  behind  me,  to  deal  with  all  questions  of 
Lxtftinal  r in  xme  It  will  be  an  enormous  advant  ige  to  have  a stall 
ot  my  own,  whom  1 can  organise  according  to  my  own  ideas  I have 
been  given  some  very  good  men  and  1 hope  bcfoic  long  to  devolve  a 
great  deal  of  work,  which  is  now  cnliicly  in  my  own  hands,  aiu^  to 
get  much  treei  I was  told  that  I could  have  more  pay  if  I askc  d foi 
it.  But  I didn’t 

The  C.B.  came  along  in  the  Birthday  Honours  last  in  the  lollowing 
summer. 

The  Department  referred  lo  in  this  letter  was  the  famous  A ” 
Division,  which  held  together  for  the  rest  of  the  war.  Sonie  of  it« 
mcmbeis  remained  Keynes’  close  associates  in  his  subseciuent 
business  interests.  Of  the  Civil  Service  proper  iheie  weie  Mr. 
(Sir  Andrew)  MacFadyeaii  and  Mr.  (Sir  Frank)  Nixon.  Mac- 
Fadyean  was  later  seconded  to  the  Reparations  Comimssion  m 
Berlin,  and,  still  later,  has  play  ed  a prominent  part  in  the  Liberal 
Party.  NixcJn  went  to  the  League  of  Nations  foi  a tune  and, 
aftei  important  inlernci  lonal  expciieiicc,  bee  am''  head  of  the 
Credits  Guarantee  Department.  Mr.  Dudley  Ward,  who  had  a 
common  interest  in  having  been  a great  friend  of  Rupert  Brooke, 
was  a pillar  of  strength  and  is  referred  to  by  Keynes  in  his 
“ Melchior  ” as  his  chief  of  staff  at  the  Paiis  Peace  Conference. 
Mr.  (later  Sn  Geoffrey)  Fry  was  of  the  party  and  is  named  in 
“ Melchior  ” as  “ my  private  secretary  ”.  A vpry  able  member 
was  Mr.  Rupert  Trouton,  aged  eighteen,  who  asked  to  be  trans- 


220  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1917 

ferred  from  another  department  at  the  sacrifice  of  his  salary.  He 
was  young  enough  to  become  Keynes’  pupil  in  Economics  in 
Cambridge  when  the  war  was  over.  They  were  closely  associated 
thereafter  by  common  business  interests. 

In  the  course  of  1917  there  was  a notable  accession  in  the 
person  of  Mr.  O.  T.  Falk,  who  was  destined  to  have  a considerable 
influence  on  Keynes’  career.  Keynes  was  struck  by  the  ability 
of  a speech  made  by  Falk  on  a question  of  war  finance  and  invited 
him  to  join  the  Division.  Falk  also  worked  with  Keynes  at  the 
Paris  Peace  Conference.  He  was  a man  of  wide  cultuie  and  con- 
siderable intelligence  and  he  had  a flair  lor  financial  questions. 
He  was  interested  in  the  theory  of  currenc  y and  exchange.  Keynes 
used  to  call  him  one  of  Nature's  economists  ”,  hinting  that  they 
were  often  bcttei  economists  than  those  more  learned  in  the 
lore  of  the  subject.  Falk  was  a collector  of  modem  pictures, 
and  this  in  future  years  was  to  be  one  ol  their  many  links.  He  was 
a friend  of  the  Asejuith  family,  so  that  there  was  also  a social  link. 

In  1917  Falk  began  giving  little  dinner-pai  ties  lor  those  who 
were  intcicsted  in  the  prolilems  ol  currency  and  finance.  Inflation 
was  pioceeding  at  home  (this  was  not  Keynes’  clejiartment !)  and 
abroad ; these  problems  were  to  outlast  the  war.  This  was  the 
dawn  of  a jiew  age  of  curiency  derangement  and,  according  to 
pious  hope,  of  new  forms  of  curiency  management.  The  old 
economic  text-books  did  not  give  an  adequate  account  of  these 
matters.  There  was  room  lor  fresh  thinking  and  analysis. 

These  dinners  soon  ciystallised  into  “ The  Tuesday  Club  ”, 
which  was  probably  the  most  influential  of  such  gatherings  of 
practical  economists  in  the  ’twenties,  and  still  exists.  Its  first 
meeting  was  on  the  19th  July  1917.  The  Club  dined  monthly 
at  the  Cafe  Ro^al,  and  altCT  dinner  a member  raised  a cjucstion 
for  discussion.  Guests  w ere  allowed,  and  an  invitation  was  deemed 
a mark  ol  distinction.  There  was  an  atmosphere  ol  intellectual 
ferment.  The  Club  Iclt  that  it  was  formulating  new  ideas  to  fit 
a changing  world,  and  that  its  discussions  might  have  an  influence 
on  events.  Keynes  read  a number  of  papers  in  the  years  after 
the  war.  He  regarded  it  as  a fitting  place  in  which  to  ventilate 
his  latest  views.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  when  he  read  on 
devaluation,  on  loth  November  1921,  there  were  thirty  persons 
present,  as  against  an  average  of  nineteen  at  the  meetings  during 
that  half-year.  JFalk  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  whenever 
Keynes  was  there  he  easily  dominated  the  Club. 


221 


34l  FIRST  WORLD  WAR 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mts,  Keynes^  joth  March  1Q17 

I was  immensely  cheered  and  extitcd  by  the  Russian  news.  It’s 
the  sole  result  of  the  war  so  far  worth  havintj  But  they’ie  not 
through  their  troubles  \et  An  acute  and  even  si  niggle  is  now  going 
on  between  tlic  Socialists  and  the  Milyukofl  constitutionalists.  1 see 
not  the  remotest  chance,  however,  of  aii)  pio-lsar  t unter -resolu- 
tion 

What  soit  ol  a wtddmg-presenl  would  (t  like  fi(*m  me 

Hisbiothti  Geoffrex  had  become  engaged  to  Margaict  Darwin, 
granddaughtei  of  the  gieat  Cluules,  lor  whom  Keynes  had 
expiesscd  such  enthusiasm  in  his  youth  Tlnough  him  the  Kc\  ties 
line  has  been  earned  on  Theie  ha\e  been  four  sons,  one  a Fellow 
of  Tiinity,  ( iiubnclge  anothoi  miking  strong  progress  in  the 
medical  piofc'^'.ion  I he  foinici  maiiicd  the  daughtei  o(  the 
renowned  ph\sioIogist,  Professoi  Adrian,  ()  M , Nobel  Prizeman 
A son  (Geoflrey’s  grandson)  was  born  on  21st  Apiil  194b,  the  day 
of  Mdvnard’s  d(  ith,  and  (hnslfrud  Ma>nard.  He  now  has  a 
younger  brother  In  their  v(ins  luns  the  blood  of  Darwin, 
Adrian,  Keynes  and  of  Da\id  Hume's  brother. 

Mayn<iid  also  had  two  nephews  and  two  nieces  through  his 
sistci  Margaret,  whose  husband,  A.  V.  Hill,  was  also  a physio- 
logist and  Nobel  Pii/cinan  Ol  these,  David  was,  m due  course, 
elected  to  a Fellow sliip  at  limit)  Cambiidge  and  Mauiice  to  a 
Fellowship  of  Kin2'\. 

Keynes'  work  mvolvtd  \aiious  tups  to  Pans,  I at  m the 
autumn  of  1917  he  had  to  go  further  ilield  — to  the  Tbiitcd 
States.  He  arcompu  d Lord  Reading  on  a mission  to  settle 
outstanding  financial  ciuestions 

J,  M.  Keyms  lo  Mrs,  Aejnes,  i^th  Septembt)  igiy 

11a  weather  is  mild  '^nd  lust  warm  enough  to  sit  without 
coat  01  lug  I have  si  U’  mi  done  so  little,  — coafei cnees  wah  Lord 
Reading  foi  about  two  iiouis  a day  on  the  problems  awailing  us  on 
the  other  side  being  my  whole  work  M)  first  three  nights  on  board 
I slept  for  12  hours,  10  hours  and  ii  hours  and  dozed  a good  deal 
during  the  da>  as  well  Seasickness,  bv  the  way,  by  drawing  the 
blood  from  the  head  promotes  sleep  in  the  most  extraordinary  way 
[Is  this  correct^  Its  dogmatism  is  very  characteristic']  The 
only  member  of  Reading’s  immediate  entourage  besid<  s myself  is 
Colonel  Swinton,  an  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  War  Cabinet,  who 


222  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1917 

during  the  first  year  of  the  war  was  “ Eye-Witness  ” at  the  fh)nt. 
I did  not  know  him  before;  but  he  turns  out  a most  attractive 
companion  and  very  kind  to  me. 

Please  tell  father  that  as  a fruit  of  the  early  education  received 
at  his  hands  I have  won  £20  at  piquet  off  a Polish  Count,  although 
we  have  played  but  little  and  not  for  very  high  points.  As  I hadn’t 
played  the  game  for  years  and  as  he  plays  it  every  day  at  one  of  the 
most  expensive  gaming  clubs  in  London,  this  is  very  creditable, 
I think. 

On  his  arrival  at  New  York  he  found  his  old  friend  Blackett, 
who  was  a(  ting  as  secretary  to  the  Financial  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  then  stationed  on  the  other  side.  “ Keynes  much  excited 
with  his  first  view  of  the  U.S.A.’'  ^ 

A loan  of  $50,000,000  for  what  is  now  known  as  an  “ off-shore  ” 
purchase  of  Canadian  wheat  was  the  first  business  to  be  transacted. 
More  fundamental  questions  concerning  intcr-allicd  finance  had 
to  be  discus<;ed.  Keynes  got  through  his  work  with  his  usual 
rapidity  and  was  on  his  way  home  a fortnight  later,  leaving  Read- 
ing behind. 

Writing  to  his  mother  from  America,  he  said,  ‘‘  I live  in  a 
small  but  coinfoi  table  private  house  with  Lord  and  Lady  Reading, 
both  of  whom  I like  immensely  This  statement  should  be  set 
against  what  he  sa)^s  of  Lord  Reading  in  “ Melchior  ’’,2  which 
was  written  when  his  feelings  were  at  theii  most  bitter. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs,  Keynes^  ijth  October  jgiy 

Before  you  get  this  letter  you  will  have  had  my  telegram  to  say 
that  I am  safely  back.  ...  We  are  travelling  one  of  a convoy  with 
an  escort,  — it  is  a very  beautiful  sight,  seven  great  liners,  with  a 
total  population  1 suppose  approaching  20,000,  steaming  in  forma- 
tion with  a cruiser  at  their  head  and  two  destroyers  on  their  flanks. 
To-day  we  are  in  the  extreme  danger  zone,  and  as  it  is  a horribly 
clear  aftei  noon  we  are  looking  out  rather  anxiously  for  the  additional 
escort  of  destroyers  and  perhaps  hydroplanes  which  was  to  have 
joined  us  last  night  but  has  not  yet  turned  up.  . . . Lockhart’s  Life 
of  Scott  has  been  my  chief  solace ; but  that’s  now  finished  and  I’m 
very  much  enjoying  Dr.  Thorne.  ...  As  I am  carrying  despatches 
and  have  the  best  cabin  on  board,  I sit  at  meals  next  the  Captain 
of  the  ship  along  with  the  American  colonels.  These  are  innocent 
middle-aged  gentlemen  from  the  Mexican  border  with  whom  I get 
* Basil  Blackett’s  Diary.  * Sec  Two  Memoirs, 


first  WORLD  WAR  223 

on  very  well  and  spend  unnumbered  hours  playing  poker  — at 
moderate  expense  to  my  pocket. 

J,  M,  Keynes  to  Mrs,  Keynes^  6th  Detember  iQiy 

I got  safely  back  on  Wednesday  [from  Paris  this  time],  after 
nearly  a week  s absence,  travelling  very  comfortably  by  special  trains 
and  destroyer,  by  which  latter  18  miles  of  the  Channel  was  crossed  in 
half  an  hour.  I enjoyed  Paris  very  much,  but  it  was  rather  hard 
work  with  perpetual  conferences  and  entertainments  and  by  no 
means  the  amount  of  sleep  1 am  accustomed  to.  On  the  last  day  I 
actually  reached  the  point  of  talking  French  ! 

At  the  final  Plenary  Conference  of  llu'  Dixhuit  Pays  Inter -Alliees 
I sat  with  Mr.  Balfour,  Lord  Reading  and  Lord  Northclifle  (sitting 
between  the  two  latter)  representing  the  Britisli  (government ! 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  Mrs,  Keynes^  i^ih  December  igiy 

\ had  thought  of  coming  home  this  week-end,  but  1 have  had 
too  much  work  10  do  and  couldn’t  get  away.  It  h.is  been  rather  a 
bad  week  w'ith  endless  houis  al)S(ilutely  wasted  in  a newly  established 
monkey  house  called  the  Inter- Ally  Council  for  War  Purchases  and 
for  Finance.  1 should  imagine  the  only  possible  analogy  to  Cover n- 
ment  by  Jriter-Ally  Council  is  Ccweniment  by  Bolsheviks,  though 
judging  by  results  the  latter  are  far  the  mure  eflicicnt.  I can’t 
believe  these  things  happen  at  Potsdam.  . . . 

Next  week-end  I shall  probably  have  to  go  to  France  again  which 
is  a great  nuiSvince  ; the  week-end  after  that  to  the  McKennas  ; and 
the  week-end  after  that  to  the  Asc^uiths.  F’ra’  Christm.is  I hope  to  go 
to  Charleston  if,  as  I ily  anticipate,  I get  I jack  from  France.  But 
you  may  not  unlikely  s *e  me  on  Jan.  12  or  Jan.  19. 

I was  very  glad  X(,  see  Vivian’s  * name  on  the  new  Air  Inventions 
Committee . 

But  despite  these  various  excitements,  there  were  black  moments. 

During  the  last  eighteen  months  losses  had  been  gigantic.  It  was 

still  obscure  how  it  woi  all  end. 

J.  M,  Keynes  to  Mrs,  Keynes^  24th  December  igiy 

My  Christmas  thoughts  arc  that  a further  prolongation  of  the 
war,  with  the  turn  things  have  now  taken,  probably  means  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  social  order  we  have  known  hitherto.  With  some 
regrets  I think  I am  on  the  whole  not  sorry.  The  abolition  of  the 

* A.  V.  Hill. 


224  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1918 

rich  will  be  rather  a comfort  and  serve  them  right  anyhow.  What 
frightens  me  more  is  the  prospect  of  general  impoverishment.  In 
another  year’s  time  we  shall  have  forfeited  the  claim  we  had  staked 
out  in  the  New  World  and  in  exchange  this  country  will  be  mortgaged 
to  America. 

Well,  the  only  course  open  to  me  is  to  be  buoyantly  bolshevik ; 
and  as  I lie  in  bed  in  the  moining  1 reflect  with  a good  deal  of 
satisfaction  that,  because  our  lulers  are  as  incompetent  as  they  are 
mad  and  wicked,  one  particular  era  of  a particular  kind  of  civilisa- 
tion is  very  nearly  over. 

1 wonder  how  long  your  Cambridge  queues  are.  Tf  we  put  prices 
low  enough  and  wages  high  enough,  we  could  achieve  the  most 
magnificent  queues  even  in  peace  time.  Tht'ie  never  has  been  any- 
thing like  enough  caviare  to  go  round.  How  soon  do  you  expect 

piano  queues?  Lcnglli  of  queue =— . . If  constantly 

^ ^ 1 prices  X supplies  ^ 

increases  while  p and  s diminish,  q tends  towards  infinity. 

J.  M.  Keyne\  to  Alts.  Keynes^  lolh  Febiuaty  igi8 

Meanwhile  I am  tenifieci  .it  the  prospects  of  nieal  rationing  and 
feel  that  1 shall  requite  fiequent  tiijis  abioad  to  get  a square  meal. 
The  pioposed  rules  seem  to  me  appalling  (.ikulated  to  dry  up 
the  food  supi)l>  on  the  one  side  and  starve  me  on  lire  othei.  Besides 
they  will  drive  the  population  on  to  ceie^ils  whu  li  is  at  bottom  a far 
more  serious  problem  tlian  the  mc'at  piolrleni  ^\lll(h  latter  bv  no 
means  deserves  to  be  treated  so  tingicall) . 

It  is  interesting  to  ol)ser\  c that  meat  rationing  wms  only  introduced 

after  three  and  a hall  years  of  war. 

J.  Ad.  Kepms  to  AI)S.  Keynes^  Febjuaiy  igiS 

. To-morrow  I go  down  to  the  Asquiths  for  the  week-end. 

Oh  I you'll  be  amused  to  hear  that  I was  ofleted  a Russian 
decoration  yesterday,  a belated  one  just  arrived  from  thr  Provisional 
Government.  Being  a Bolshevik,  however,  I thought  it  more  piopcT 
to  refuse.  . . 

The  course  of  politics  at  the  beginning  of  the  week  was  deeply 
shocking.  Bonar  could  have  become  prime  minister  if  he  had  liked, 
but  funked  it ; and  as  no  one  else  seemed  inclined  to  take  the  job, 
the  government  struggled  through,  emerging  however  without  many 
tail-feathers  left. 


AET.  34] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes^  yd  March  igi8 

...  I have  followed  my  refusal  of  a Russian  order  by  refusing  this 
week  a Belgian  one.  I consulted  Chalmers  about  it  and  he  thinks 
this  the  right  course.  If  people  come  to  you  with  a decoration  in  one 
hand  and  a request  for  a million  pounds  in  the  other,  the  position  is  a 
little  delicate ; and  in  the  peculiar  position  in  which  1 stand  to  the 
Allied  gentlemen  I must  I think  maintain  perfect  independence  of 
them.  Besides  the  whole  thing  is  rather  humbug. 

I was  very  glad  indeed  to  sec  that  Vivian  had  been  nominated 
F.R.S. 

The  disti  esses  ol'  war  and  politics  were  relieved  at  this  time 
by  a ray  of  sunlight.  An  auction  was  to  be  held  in  Paris  of  Degas’s 
private  collection,  including  some  of  his  own  work.  Duncan 
Grant  suggested  that  the  National  Galleiy  should  be  a buyer. 
Keynes  took  up  the  point  with  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 
Our  loans  to  France  were  running  up  and  wc  did  not  know  when 
we  w’erp  likely  to  see  them  back.  Why  not  help  the  French  balance 
of  payments  by  bu)  iiig  some  of  these  pictures  ? Bonar  Law  was 
converted  and  KeyiU's  was  given  £20^000  to  take  to  Paris  on  one 
of  his  excursions  on  Treasury  business.  “ Bonar  Law  was  very 
much  amused  at  my  wanting  to  buy  pic  tures  and  eventually  let 
me  have  my  way  as  a sort  of  joke.”  ^ Keynes  was  accompanied 
by  Charles  Holmes,  the  Director  of  the  National  Gallery.-^  Big 
Bertha  was  shelling  Paris  during  the  auction,  and  this  is  said  to 
have  depressed  ’>riccs.  Keynes  also  made  some  purchases  on  his 
own  account,  including  Cc/anne’s  Apples  ” and  a drawing  by 
Ingres.  This  event  wa^  really  the  beginning  of  his  carcci  as  a 
collector  of  modern  pain  lings. 

* Letter  to  Mrs.  Ke\rrs,  J3id  Maich  191B, 

- The  pirtuir  purchased  lor  the  National  Clallery  were: 

Cta  ol  CUaiidian  Aqiic  d uc  t 

Delacroix  • Baron  dc  &(liwit<*r 
Abel  V\  idner 
1 oraiji  • The  Tribunal 
» a Jf>uin  . Mowtr  Piece 
Inures . C^edipus 

,,  M.  de  Norvine 

,,  Roger  and  Angelica 

„ Pindar  offering  his  lyre  to  Homer 

Manet : PLxecution  of  Maximilian 

„ I.ady  with  a cat 

Rousseau  : Vall^  de  S.  Vincent 
Ricard  : Bust  portrait  of  a Man. 

Abo  8 Delacroix.  2 Ingres,  and  i J.-L.  David  drawings. 


a 


226  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [19x8 

Duncan  Grant  to  J.  M.  Keynes  {telegram)^  23rd  March  igi8 

Do  buy  Ingres  Portrait  of  Self,  Cezanne,  Corot,  even  at  cost  of 
losing  others 

Vanessa  Bell  to  J.  M,  Keynes 

We  are  feai  fully  excited  by  your  telegram  and  are  longing  to 
know  more  1 his  is  a line  to  say  do  consult  Roger  * before  you  go, 
as  he’ll  know  who  to  get  hold  v'f  in  Pans  Duncan  says  be  as  pro- 
fessional as  possible  in  the  buying  and  get  at  the  right  people  — 
otheiwist  some  German  or  Scandinavian  will  trick  you  We 

have  great  hopes  of  you  and  consider  that  your  existence  at  the 
Treasury  is  at  1 ist  justified 

I think  a fi  ist  ofi  our  pig  will  be  one  of  your  rewards 

Dai  id  Gamdt  to  J AI  Keynes 

Nessa  ind  Dune  in  ue  very  proud  of  \ou  and  eager  to 

know  how  you  did  it  ou  h i\ e be  en  gi\ en  c oinplt  tc  absolution  and 
fiUiirc  crimes  ilso  feinuvcn 

But  gloom  descended  again 

J M KevKs  to  A/ry  Ki^ms,  i }fh  Apnl  iQiS 

The  Whuf,  Sutton  Courtney 
Polities  and  War  are  lust  as  depressing  en  even  more  so, 
than  the } se  cm  to  be  If  this  Governme  nt  were  to  beat  the  Germans, 
I should  lose  all  frith  for  the  futuie  in  the  cfTieacy  of  intellectual 
pioe  esses  — but  there  doesn  t seem  much  iisk  of  it  Lverything  is 
always  derided  foi  some  leason  other  than  the  real  merits  of  the 
case,  la  the  sphere  with  which  I have  contact  And  1 have  no  doubt 
that  It  is  just  the  same  with  everything  else 

Still  ind  even  more  confidently  I attiibute  all  our  misfortunes 
to  George  In  the  meantime  old  Asquith  who  I believe  might 

vet  save  us  is  more  and  more  of  1 student  and  lover  of  slack  country 
life  and  less  ind  less  inclined  for  the  turmoil  Here  he  is,  extremely 
well  in  health  and  full  of  wisdom  and  fit  foi  anything  in  the  world  — 
except  controversy  He  finds,  theiefoie,  in  patriotism  an  easy  excuse 
for  his  natural  disinclination  to  attack  the  Government  People  say 
that  the  politician  would  attack,  but  the  patriot  refrain  I believe 
the  opposite  is  true  The  patriot  would  attack  but  the  politician 
(and  the  sluggard)  refrain 


* Roger  Fry 


aet.34]  first  world  war  227 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes^  loth  May  igi8 

The  result  of  yesterday’s  debate  was  very  disappointing.  For  a 
moment  I entertained  the  hope  that  the  Goat  had  been  caught  at  last, 
but  not  he  ! However  it  means,  I think,  that  the  liberals  have  now 
gone  definitely  into  opposition  which  is  a great  deal  gained. 

British  letters  owe  a debt  of  gratitude  to  Sir  Edward  Marsh. 
He  was  zealous  in  his  quest  for  young  men  of  talent,  and  by  his 
encouragement  of  poets  did  much  to  help  them  in  the  early  years 
of  the  century.  He  was  quick  to  appreciate  Rupert  Brooke, 
Deeply  moved  by  his  death,  he  wrote  a Memoir.  He  portrayed 
Brooke  as  the  type  of  poet  and  idealist  who  had  given  his  life,  and, 
partly  through  this  memoir,  Brooke  came  to  symbolise  for  the 
whole  nation  the  heroism  and  tragedy  of  the  war.  In  this  process 
something  of  the  literal  truth  was  lost.  Brooke’s  friends  felt,  that 
Marsh  had  given  a sentimentalised  version,  which  failed  to  convey 
the  peculiar  individuality  of  his  hero.  Keynes  wrote  to  this  effect 
to  his  mother : Most  of  the  most  intimate  of  Rupert’s  early 

friends  are  not  so  much  as  mentioned.  Geoffrey  * and  the  Oliviers, 
for  example,  not  at  all ; James  Strachey  and  Ka  once  each  and 
casually.  Whereas  a week-end  with  George  Wyndham  figures.” 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs  Keynes,  sisl  September  igi8 

, . . Duncan  is  with  me  having  cornc  up  for  his  annual 
holiday.  M)  Ir.uving  room  is  to  be  refurbished  and  decorated  and 
is  going  to  be,  when  finished,  the  flashiest  room  in  London. 

Work  goes  on  now  in  a steady  routine.  I am  again  increasing 
my  staff  which  will  now  numbt!r  seventeen,  and  I hope  soon  to  be 
in  my  new  consolidated  quarters.  My  most  amusing  job  just  lately 
has  been  to  invent  a new  currency  for  Russia.  Dudley  Ward  and  I 
have  been  spending  a great  deal  of  time  on  the  details,  as  we  have 
had  to  design  the  notes,  gc»  them  printed,  choose  the  personnel, 
answer  commdrurns  and  do  the  whole  thing  from  top  to  toe.  We 
hope  to  have  the  plan  A.M,.iched  on  the  wwld  in  tw'O  or  three  w'^ceks’ 
time. 

There’s  a certain  amount  of  talk  been  going  on  behind  the 
scenes  about  the  Provostship.  I still  think  W.  D.2  most  likely  to  be 
elected,  but  Raleigh  may  possibly  be  asked  to  stand.  I have  been 

> May-nard’s  bn^ther  and  Brooke’s  literary  executor ; editor  of  Brooke’s  Poetical 
Works  (Faber,  1946),  and  Democracy  and  the  Arts  (Rupert  Hart-Da  vis,  1947) ; also  of 
Letters  now  in  preparation.  • 

* Mr.  Walter  Durnford,  who  was  elected. 


228  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1918 

flattered  by  several  people  (including  Macaulay)  saying  that  I 
would  be  their  first  choice.  But  of  course  this  is  out  of  the  question, 
— in  fact  no  one  really  thinks  otherwise. 

In  the  autumn  of  1918,  jaded,  war-weary  London  had  a most 
delightful  inteilude.  The  Diaghilcv  Ballet  returned  for  the  first 
time  since  before  the  war  and  had  a season  at  the  Coliseum. 
Bloomsbury  and,  indeed,  all  artistic  and  literary  London  were 
swept  off  their  feet. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes^  13th  October  igi8 

I’ve  stayed  m London  for  the  last  two  week-ends,  but  have  had 
a very  gay  life  as  Duncan  and  Vanessa  have  been  staging  here  and 
it  has  been  the  heighi  of  the  Russian  Ballet  season  Apait  from  the 
parties  I’ve  been  to,  this  house  has  bcin  perpetually  full  of  people, 
with  the  result  that  my  supply  of  sheets  amongst  other  things  has 
completelv  given  out  • 

The  Sitwells,  now  burgeoning  into  the  fine  bloom  of  their 
youthful  period,  were  among  the  gieatest  enthusiasts,  and  a party 
for  the  Ballet  was  given  in  their  house  at  Carlyle  Square.  Keynes 
was  amongst  the  guests. 

So  also  was  the  exquisite  ballerina,  Lydia  Lopokova,  who  was 
enthralling  London  by  her  peiformantes  in  The  Good-Humoured 
Ladies.  The  eyes  of  those  invited  were  attracted  by  a large 
number  of  inany-colouicd  stuficd  love-birds  m a glass  case  — a 
characteristic  Sitwell  touch.  It  is  iccallcd  that  Lydia  threw  up 
her  arms  in  ardent  appreciation  and  asked  if  she  could  not  be 
given  one  of  these  love-birds.  It  is  not  lei  ailed  that  her  request 
was  granted  at  this  party. 

3 

In  the  autumn  of  1918  it  began  to  appear  that  victory  was  in 
sight.  A matter  with  which  the  Treasury  would  be  concerned 
was  that  of  German  reparations.  A historical  retrospect  and 
statement  of  principles  had  been  composed  by  Keynes  and  W.  A. 
Ashley  for  the  Board  of  Trade  as  early  as  2nd  January  1916. 

“ A ’’  Division  now  got  busy  on  this  topic.  They  worked  hard 
and  long,  exploring  the  matter  from  every  angle  — Germany’s 
pre-war  foreign  trade,  her  production,  her  foreign  assets,  the 
value  of  those  tejrritories  (Alsace-Lorraine,  a portion  of  Silesia,  etc.) 
which  she  was  likely  to  lose,  and  of  her  colonies,  and  the  amount 


AET.  35] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


239 

of  all  those  forms  of  damage  which,  under  the  terms  of  the  Armis- 
tice, were  likely  to  give  rise  to  claims.  Information  was  assembled 
from  every  quarter.  The  team  laboured  under  Keynes’  guidance. 
He  had  an  acknowledged  flair  for  “ global  estimates  of  this  kind. 
Indeed,  among  the  many  things  that  owe  their  origin  to  his 
influence  may  be  listed  the  use  fit  “ global  ” statistics  in  debate 
and  decision  concerning  broad  political  issues.  Before  his  day, 
even  economists  had  tended  to  argue  about  political  issues  in 
qualitative  teims  only. 

‘‘  A ” Division  had  ceitain  special  qualifitation'i  for  dealing 
with  this  pioblem.  llieir  methods  of  handling  intcr-allied  finance 
had  bi ought  them  face  to  (ace  with  the  jiioblcms  of  capacitv  to 
pay,  estimates  of  probable  defujencies,  priorities  among  the  various 
items  of  tiade,  the  capacit)  loi  expanding  various  kinds  ol  pro- 
duction under  piessuie.  Then  knowledge  ol  tlie  details  of  woild 
trade,  wdiich  came  to  them  fiom  theii  day-to-day  experience, 
must  have  been  uni iv .died  at  that  time. 

1 heir  findings  wcie  hctoit  the  Cabinet  at  the  end  of  November. 
Biasing  then  estimate  on  the  high  side,  they  found  that  the  bill 
against  the  cnem^,  in  accouhaue  with  the  Armistice  teims,  might 
be  about  ^4000  million.  On  an  optimistic  forecast  they  thought 
that  Germany’s  capacity  to  pay  might  lie  /3000  million,  but 
that  it  would  be  more  prudent  to  lerkon  on  £2000  million.  This 
was  a laige  sum.  In  oicki  to  bung  it  into  focus,  one  mav  compare 
it  with  the  indemnitv  exacted  b\  the  Germans  aftci  the  Franco- 
Prussian  war  (n  £212  million.  This  French  indcmiiitv  v as  always 
leckoned  to  be  a heavy  one.  1 1 would  be  impossible  lor  Germany 
to  hand  ovei  the  pioj  sed  /J200C)  million  at  once;  at  the  then 
prevailing  t ite  of  inteust  of  y pir  ciiit  th's  sum  would  repiesent 
;(^ioo  million  a yeai  until  it  could  be  paid  off.  This  wa>  certainly 
a stiff  pioposal ; yet,  looking  back,  we  may  doubt  whether  h was 
the  maximum  obtainable.  Keynes  was  no  doubt  biased  on  the 
side  of  leniency,  and  this  ma^  have  influenced  the  Rc^iort.  It 
should  be  iiotc'd,  howc  ^ that  the  Jiioo  million  was  to  be  the 
net  payment  lecovcrable  and  not  the  total  buidcn  on  Germany. 
Before  the  war  Germany  had  had  a substantial  adverse  balance 
of  trade,  offset  by  invisible  items  which  would  now  disappear. 
Furthermore.  Germany  was  due  to  suffer  loss  of  valuable  income- 
earning  territoiy  and  her  mercantile  maiine.  The  Treasury 
appears  to  have  been  satisfied  with  the  document,  and  it  was 
presented. 


230  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1918 

There  was  at  that  time  a member  of  the  War  Cabinet  of  force- 
ful personality  and  ardent  temperament  — Hughes,  the  Australian 
Prime  Minister.  He  had  no  qualifications  especially  entitling  him 
to  a judgment  on  these  topics,  but  that  did  not  deter  him.  He 
regarded  the  Report  as  chicken-feed,  and  afTnmed  that  Germany 
should  pay  for  the  full  amount  that  the  allies  had  spent  upon  the 
war.  A new  independent  committee  was  set  up,  and,  oddly 
enough,  Hughes  was  made  the  chairman.  The  committee  associ- 
ated Lord  Cunlifle,  formerly  Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England, 
in  its  deliberations.  It  took  the  view  that  Germany  should  pay 
for  the  full  cost  of  the  war  to  the  allies  and  this  was  set  down  at 
3(^24,000  million.  These  gentlemen  saw  no  leasoii  why  Geimany 
should  not  pay  5 per  cent  on  this  sum,  namely  £1200  million  a 
year,  until  the  capital  could  be  paid  off.  No  army  of  occupation 
would  be  needed  io  enfoue  these  payments.  Lloyd  George  was 
emphatic  in  lading  down  that  any  project  should  be  based  on 
this  assumption,  and  the  committee  acc  cpled  this  limitation.  The 
figure  was,  of  com  sc,  wholly  fantastic.  It  was  mote  than  a bun- 
dled limes  the  indemnity  exacted  by  Germany.  It  has  not  been 
explained,  to  my  knowledge,  hejw  a foiiner  Governor  of  the  Biink 
of  England  could  have  lent  himself  to  sneh  a ludic  rous  pioposition. 
It  is  inter  ('Sting  to  compare  the  figuic  of  200  million  per  annum 
with  the  claim  made  by  Britain  in  all  good  faith  in  1931  that  it 
was  economically  impossible  for  her  to  pay  million  a year 
to  the  United  blates,  although  she  had  not  recently  h)st  her 
meicantile  maiinc  01  a huge  part  of  her  teiiitories  or  just  fought 
an  expensive  wai,  and  although  she  had  pledged  heiself  to  pay 
this  amount  by  an  agreement  freely  ai lived  at.  No  doubt  one 
interprets  possible  somewhat  differently  in  the  case  of  a friendly 
power  and  in  that  of  a defeated  foe.  None  the  less,  allowing  most 
liber  all)  for  that,  our  claim  in  1931  sufiicientl)  exposes  the  Guiiliire 
figure. 

It  appears  th*it  this  Report  was  written  in  total  ignorance  of 
the  most  elementary  points.  It  was  put  to  the  authors  that  these 
heavy  payments  would  surely  compel  Germany  to  compete 
strongly  in  British  expoit  markets.  (In  fact,  if  she  captured  half 
the  British  pre-war  export  markets  and  the  whole  of  the  French, 
she  still  would  not  be  exporting  enough  goods  to  meet  the  bill.) 
Hughes  denied  the  allegation.  If  Germany  had  to  pay  a large 
indemnity,  she  would  have  to  impose  heavy  taxes,  and  these 
would  raise  her' costs  of  production.  Britain  could  remit  taxes, 


AHT  35] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


231 

and  this  would  lower  her  costs.  Thus  the  net  effect  would  be 
to  improve  the  British  chances  of  competition  against  Germany ! 
It  is  clear  from  this  that  he  had  no  notion  at  ail  how  the  indemnity 
would  have  to  be  paid.  If  ;^i200  million  a year  was  actually 
to  be  delivered,  Germany  would  have  to  secure  that  her  exports 
exceeded  her  imports  in  value  by  that  amount ; li  her  taxes  were 
heavy,  wages  would  have  to  be  reduced  correspon  lingly,  until 
German  goods  were  so  cheap  that  she  could  compete  successfully 
and  flood  all  markets  with  them.  In  this  utter  nesc  icnce  Hughes 
may  not  ha\e  been  different  from  many  other  politicians  of  the 
time,  who  conceived  of  the  indemrntv  simply  in  teims  of  writing 
a cheque  for  that  amount  and  levying  it  upon  the  citizens.  The 
transfer  problem  was  not  envisaged.  Keynes  told  theni  about  it, 
but  they  turned  a deal  eai . 

While  this  Report  was  in  piogress,  Lloyd  Gcoigc  was  conduct- 
ing a General  Election.  He  obtained  advance  figures  from  the 
committee  and  used  them  on  a public  jilatlorm.  1 ')hall  have 
more  tc)  say  o1  this  election  111  the  following  c baplei , when e Keynes’ 
views  on  the  reparations  clauses  and  othei  aspects  o(  the  peace 
treaty  will  be  discussed. 

The  Cabinet  left  the  matter  undetermined.  The  British 
delegates  went  fcorth  to  Pans  in  Januars  loiy  with  the  Treasury 
Report,  a Board  of  li<idc  Repoit,  which  reached  similar  conclu- 
sions, and  the  Hughe-  Report  in  their  pockets.  Keyne*.  although 
anxious,  was  not  ^et  despeiate,  since  he  was  sure  that  Wilson 
would  not  agree  to  exacting  tlic  whole  cost  of  the  war  from 
Germany. 

He  went  to  Pans  a principal  iepiesentati\e  of  the  Treasury, 
with  power  to  sjicak,  when  nec^ssaiy,  foi  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer.  Members  of  A”  Division  - Dudley  Ward,  Falk, 
Geoffrey  Fry  — went  with  him.  Later,  he  aLo  had  the  services 
of  Mr.  Harry  Siepmann,^  who  returned  from  active  ''Crvue. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes,  14th  January  igig 

Majestic  Hotel 

At  last  on  Fridav  I travelled  over  here  with  Lord  Reading  and 
soon  found  myself  in  tire  full  swing  of  affairs.  I write  in  haste  as  1 
am  off  to  (Germany  for  a few  days  in  a quarter  of  an  hour.  But  I 
give  you  yesterday  as  a sample.  10  a m.  Armistice  C-Jommittee  to 

• 

* Since  *945  a Director  of  the  Bank  of  England 


232  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

settle  the  renewal  terms  with  Germany,  Foch  presiding;  after  a 
short  time  Bonar  Law  left  me  alone  and  I had  to  lift  up  my  voice 
loudly  against  the  French;  as  a result  deadlock  and  the  matter 
referred  to  the  Supreme  War  Council  in  the  afternoon.  12.30  Con- 
ference with  the  Americans.  1.15  lepoit  morning’s  results  to  Bonar 
Law.  Lunch  with  Lord  Reading.  2.30  Supreme  War  Council, 
which  was  extraordinarily  interesting  — Wilson,  Clemenceau  and 
all  of  them  there;  Bonar  Law  and  Wilson  stiongly  supported  my 
view  and  Klotz,  speaking  foi  the  French,  was  completely  defeated. 
4.30  Supreme  Council  of  Relief  and  Supply  which  lasted  to  dinner 
time ; after  dinner  Treasury  bag  from  London  and  finally  bridge. 

These  days  in  hot  French  rooms  are  \eiy  tiring. 

As  I am  British  Knancial  representative  to  go  wdth  Foch  to  meet 
the  Germans  I am  now  off  to  Treves,  to  arrange  amongst  other 
things  the  sale  of  food  to  them,  where  I expect  to  meet  the  President 
of  the  Reichsbank. 

There  is  an  enormous  crowd  here  and  as  you  may  imagine  a 
perpetual  bu/z  of  chatter,  gossip  .and  intrigue. 

The  Armistice  terms  stated  that  “ tlie  Allies  contemplated 
the  provisioning  of  Gcimany  to  the  extent  tTiat  shall  be  deemed 
necessary  This  was  taken  to  mean  that  the  Allies  would  relax 
the  blockade  to  this  extent,  but  not  that  they  would  provide  the 
food  gratis.  Germany  must  pay.  But  how?  She  had  at  the 
moment  no  surplus  of  goods  waiting  at  the  ports  for  exportation. 
In  the  immediate  future,  payment  could  only  be  made  in  gold  or 
foreign  securities.  But  this  the  French  had  not  been  willing  to 
permit,  since  they  legardcd  these  assets  as  earmarked  against  the 
reparations  account.  So  no  food  was  going  into  Germany,  and 
the  position  there  seemed  likely  to  deteriorate.  The  Armistice  had 
to  be  renewed  each  month,  and  when  Keynes  wrote  the  letter 
quoted.  Marshal  Foch  was  about  to  mount  his  train  for  talks 
with  Germans  at  the  frontier  regarding  the  second  renewal.  I will 
not  give  the  details  of  these  negotiations,  as  Keynes  has  himself 
supplied  a sparkling  account  of  them  in  the  Memoir  entitled 
“ Dr.  Melchior  The  delivery  of  food  was  not  achieved  for  an- 
other two  months,  since  the  French  remained  unwilling  for  gold 
to  be  used  in  payment.  This  refusal,  on  technical  grounds,  for 
a period  of  four  months,  of  the  food  promised  at  the  Armistice 
was  a graver  wrong  than  the  more  commonly  cited  “ continuance 
of  the  blockade  The  British  troops  were  sickened  by  the 


* Two  Memoirs, 


AttT.  35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  233 

spectacle  of  ill  and  hungry  children,  and  the  wrath  of  Lloyd 
George  at  French  obstruction  was  finally  aroused.  There  was 
also  the  fear  that  Bolshevism  might  spread  into  Germany,  and 
this  was  the  political  argument  most  frequently  used  in  the  interest 
of  humane  treatment.  Keynes,  critical  as  he  was  of  Lloyd  George 
on  many  counts,  gives  a fine  description  of  his  passionate  onslaught 
on  French  obstruction  at  a meeting  on  8th  March.  Even  Clemen- 
ceau  was  overwhelmed  by  the  fire  and  fury  of  it,  and  the  main 
point  was  gained. 

The  French,  however,  still  had  one  obstructive  ruse  in  reserve. 
On  the  second  occasion  of  the  renewal  of  the  Armistice,  it  was  laid 
down  that  the  Germans  must  hand  over  their  mercantile  rnanne, 
the  need  for  ships  to  c2Lrry  food  to  them  being  put  in  as  a justi- 
fication for  adding  this  fresh  demand.  (Everyone  knew  that  the 
terms  of  peace  would  include  a surrender  ot  the  merchant  fleet, 
but  it  was  not  included  in  the  original  armistice  terms.)  In 
January  and  February  the  Germans  had  delayed  handing  over, 
since,’ until  they  were  allowed  to  use  their  gold  to  buy  food,  they 
saw  no  prospect  of  obtaining  any.  On  8th  March  the  French 
insisted  that  the  Germans  should  express  unconditional  willing- 
ness to  hand  over  their  merchant  fleet,  regardless  of  the  food 
question,  and  that  only  after  they  had  undertaken  to  do  so, 
would  they  be  told  that  they  would  be  allowed  to  use  their  gold 
for  food.  The  French  may  have  reckoned  that  the  Germans, 
not  yet  knowing  the  second  branch  of  this  double  proposal,  would 
refuse  to  comply  \vith  the  first,  so  that  there  would  be  jiiore  delay. 
But  Lloyd  George  was  in  earnest  now.  He  informed  tlie  First 
Sea  Lord,  who  repres<.nted  Britain  on  this  formal  occasion  of  the 
final  demand  for  the  surrender  of  the  German  merchant  fleet, 
that  he  must  use  all  means  necessary  to  see  that  the  negotiations 
in  regard  to  food  went  through  successfully.  The  First  Sea  Lord’s 
Chief  of  Staff  sought  the  help  of  Keynes,  who  on  a previous 
occasion  had  had  some  conversation  on  the  side  with  Melchior, 
the  principal  German  aelegate.  It  was  a satisfaction  to  him  to 
be  able,  again  on  the  side  but  this  time  in  association  with  a 
representative  of  the  British  Navy,  to  tell  the  Ge:rmans  that  they 
could  solidly  count  on  a release  of  gold  for  food,  if  they  first 
agreed  to  hand  over  the  fleet.  Freiich  obstructionism  was  at  last ' 
overcome. 

All  those  who  met  Melchior  were  impressed  with  his  dignity 
and  integrity.  Although  he  eventually  refused  to  be  a party  to 


234  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

the  Treaty  of  Versailles  and  resigned,  his  bank  in  Germany 
did  not  dare  allow  his  picture  to  remain  on  the  walls  of  its 
parlour  when  the  Na/is  attained  power.  He  happened  to  be 
a Jew.  Keynes  often  told  a story  which  is  not  included  in  the 
Memoir.  Melchior  was  being  particularly  obstinate  on  a certain 
point,  no  doubt  under  instructions.  “ If  you  go  on  like  that, 
Melchior,”  Keynes  said,  “ wc  shall  think  you  are  as  difl&cult  as  an 
Ally.”  The  rage  of  his  Fiench  colleagues  may  be  imagined. 

Shortly  after  the  fiist  negotiations  in  January,  Keynes  took 
to  his  bed  with  influen/a.  The  epidemic  raged  furiously  among 
the  British  delegates  somewhat  later ; many  left  Pans  and  did 
not  return;  it  is  conceivable  that  this  thinning  out  was  a source 
of  weakness  m the  very  ciitu  al  da>s  before  and  after  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  peace  teims,  and  that,  l)ut  foi  the  influenza,  we  might 
ha\e  had  a sliglitly  better  Peace  Treaty.  Keynes  tells  us  in  his 
Memon  how  he  went  off  to  recover  at  the  house  of  his  friend 
Madame  Buss),  on  the  Riviera,  where  six  \eais  eailicr  he  had 
been  at  the  dooi  of  death.  But  he  does  not  add  that  he  was  up 
to  his  old  truks  again,  and,  having  visited  Honte  Carlo,  had  to 
borrow  from  Mackunc  Bus>v  the  wherewithal  to  get  him  back  to 
Paris. 

From  the  cud  of  December  a body  had  been  functioning  in 
Paris,  known  as  the  Allied  Supreme  Council  for  Supply  and 
Relief.  On  8th  February,  this  was  tiansformed  into  the  Supreme 
Economic  Cuuiuil.  Keynes  was  the  official  Tieasury  rcpiesenta- 
tive.  Lord  Robert  Cecil  was  the  principal  British  representative 
and  took  the  chair,  de  jiue  liy  rotation,  but  dc facto  at  every  meeting. 
This  Council  was  concerned  with  tiansilional  problems.  Until 
peace  was  signed,  intei -allied  control  of  finance,  shipping,  food, 
materials,  etc.,  had  to  be  maintained.  This  was  familiar  territory 
foi  Keynes,  and  he  was  alile  to  carry  on  in  Paris  with  the  good  work 
of  “ A ” Division.  Whatever  else  may  have  happened  there,  the 
Supreme  Economic  Council  continued  to  function  efficiently. 
Mr.  Baker  wiote  : ^ 

Out  of  these,  during  the  Peace  Conference,  developed  the 
Supreme  Economic  (Jouncil,  which  became  foi  a brief  time  a kind  of 
economic  w orld  government  the  greatest  experiment  ever  made  in 
the  con  elation,  control,  and  direction,  in  time  of  peace,  of  inter- 
national tiade  and  finance  In  some  ways  it  was  the  most  interest- 
ing and  significant,  because  it  was  the  newest,  aspect  of  the  Paris 

> Woodrou  14  tlson  and  World  Settlement^  vol  ii,  p.  335 


aet.35]  first  world  war  235 

Conference.  Military  and  political  alliances  and  cooperation  are 
not  new  in  the  world,  but  such  a degree  of  economic  cooperation 
never  before  existed. 

It  was  a little  nest  of  liberalism  in  the  Paris  wilderness.  The 
principal  French  representative,  M.  Loucheur,  was  a much  more 
reasonable  man  than  M.  Klotz.  Keynes  had  scope  here  for  useful 
work. 


J,  A^,  Keynes  to  Dr.  J.  JV.  Keynes^  i6th  March  igiy 

...  I am  Deputy  for  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  on  the 
Supreme  Economic  Council  w'ith  full  powers  to  lake  decisions ; also 
one  of  the  two  British  Empire  representatives  on  the  Financial 
Committee  of  the  Peace  Confcicnce  ; chairman  of  the  Tnter-Allied 
Financial  Delegates  m Armistice  Negotiations  with  Germany;  and 
principal  Treasury  Representative  in  Paris.  All  of  which  sounds 
rather  grander  than  it  is,  — but  it’s  a lull  day's  occupation. 

On  23rd  January  a Commission  on  Reparations  was  formally 
constituted  with  instruction  to  report  on  the  amount  which 
enemy  countries  ought  to  pay  and  on  what  they  were  capable 
of  paying.  The  Groat  Powers  each  had  three  reprcsctitalives, 
Keynes  was  not  among  the  British ; the  British  Treasury  and  Board 
of  Trade  were  both  unrepresented.  This  point  has  not  been 
sufficiently  stressed.  It  is  one  thing  to  resign,  as  Keynes  ultimately 
did,  but  criti  '^i  nlight  hold  that  a great  man  should  have  been 
able  to  influence  decisions  so  that  he  did  not  have  to  resign. 
It  is  important  to  emnhasise,  therefore,  that  Keynes  was  not  on 
the  body  wdiich  was  formally  responsible  for  the  matters  in  question. 
His  official  work  in  Paris  was  mainly  concerned  with  the  purely 
transitional  matters  looked  after  by  the  Supreme  Economic 
Council,  and  with  carrying  out  any  other  incidental  Treasury 
business  that  might  arise  there.  In  regard  to  backstairs  influence, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  this  w^as  largely  exerted  by  Lloyd 
George’s  “ garden  suburb  ”,  and  Keynes  did  not  belong  to  that 
either.  There  Philip  Kerr  > ruled  the  roost. 

Lloyd  George’s  nominees  to  the  Reparations  Commission 
were  Hughes,  Cunliffe  and  Sumner.  Wc  have  already  had  a 
glimpse  at  the  mentality  of  Hughes  and  Cunliffe.  In  his  Memoirs 
of  the  Peace  Conference  (1939)  Lloyd  George  writes  as  follows  with 

* LatPT  Lord  Lothian,  British  Ambassadoi  in  VVashingftin,  1930-1940. 


236  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1912 

reference  to  the  Report  of  the  Hughes-GunlifTe  Committee  in 
December  1918 : * 

Mr.  Sonar  Law  and  I regarded  the  conclusions  of  this  Report 
as  a wild  and  fantastic  chimera.  It  was  incredible  that  men  of  such 
position,  experience  and  responsibility  should  have  appended  their 
names  to  it. 

Why,  if  such  was  his  view,  did  he  appoint  these  same  men  only 
six  weeks  later  to  the  Reparations  Commission,  to  the  exclusion 
of  representatives  of  the  British  Treasury  and  the  British  Board 
of  Trade  ? Lord  Sumner  was  a judge  of  high  repute,  but  of  no 
financial  knowledge.  He  appears  to  have  been  a man  of  narrow 
views  and  took  the  ordinary  line  that  the  Germans  should  be 
thoroughly  trounced;  he  thought  his  duty  well  discharged  in 
using  his  legal  abilities  in  support  of  Cunliffe.  In  a note  to  Philip 
Kerr,  dated  25th  March,  Keynes  quoted  the  following  trenchant 
observations  upon  them  by  Norman  Davis,  the  American  Treasury 
representative  : 

If  we  can  quiet  down  the  Heavenly  Twins  JLords  Cunliffe  and 
Sumner]  by  agreeing  any  fool  report  for  the  Ihree  and  then  get  rid 
of  them  by  winding  up  the  Commission,  we  can  gel  around  with 
some  human  beings  and  stait  quite  afresh. 

It  was  wrong  that  the  British  Treasury  should  not  have  been 
represented  on  the  Commission.  Lloyd  Geoige,  who  knew 
Keynes’  views,  no  doubt  had  it  in  mind  that  if,  in  the  course 
of  his  acrobatics,  he  began  to  wish  to  play  down  reparations,  he 
could  produce  Keynes  out  of  his  hat.  This  is  Mr.  Keynes ; 
he  is  here  representing  the  British  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
and  what  he  says  has  the  Chancellor’s  authority.  I should  feel 
the  gravest  difficulty  in  committing  my  country  to  a course  of 
action  flatly  opposed  to  the  express  advice  and  considered  con- 
viction of  my  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer ; I cannot  do  it.  You 
must  find  me  a new  Chancellor,  gentlemen.”  But  Lloyd  George’s 
thoughts  did  not  take  this  turn. 

As  it  turned  out,  the  deliberations  of  the  Reparations  Com- 
mittee, so  far  as  any  positive  proposals  were  concerned,  were 
futile.  But  the  British  members  exerted  a crucial  influence  at  a 
certain  point.  I do  not  believe  that  the  upshot  would  have  been 
quite  the  same  had  Keynes  been  on  the  Commission  representing 


’ P.  305- 


ABX  35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  237 

the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  Had  he  been  a co«equal 
member  with  Sumner,  speaking  with  the  authority  of  the  Chan- 
cellor, Sumner  would  have  had  to  give  close  attention  to  his  views 
and  arguments.*  Sumner  may  have  been  a bigot,  but  he  was 
also  a judge  and  thereby  trained  to  listen  to  arguments  when 
these  are  advanced  in  court.  Keynes’  arguments  happen  to 
have  been  quite  impregnable,  and  he  was  a matchless  advocate 
on  occasion.  This  would  have  been  his  supreme  hour.  Before 
Lord  Sumner  he  would  have  deployed  argument  upon  argument 
with  ice-cold  logre  and  precision,  no  time  for  rudeness  now, 
or  for  fancy ; not  the  flrcker  of  an  eyebrow ; just  the  unanswer- 
able case.  He  would  have  been  at  the  top  of  his  bent,  keyed 
up  by  his  passionate  intellectual  contempt  for  the  trash  of  Hughes 
and  Cunliffe,  and  from  far  away,  from  sr)mc  remote  recesses  of 
his  being,  would  have  come  the  drstant,  but  distinct,  voices  of 
Duncan  and  the  others  — “ go  on  . . go  on  . . . remember 
your  pledge,  remember  that  all  that  we  hold  dear  and  all  that 
you  hold  dear  is  at  stake,  and  that  decent  living  for  many  genera- 
tions will  depend  on  how  >ou  state  this  case 

But  it  was  not  like  thrs  at  all.  1 he  opportunity  did  not  arise. 
Keynes  had  to  rely  on  unoffic1.1l  methods  for  spreading  h’>  views, 
save  for  the  occasions  when  it  might  be  Llovd  George’s  whim  to 
consult  him.  ReadiTs  of  his  book,  who  judge  his  stature  by  it,  are 
in  danger  of  over-estimating  his  importante  m P.11  is.  Ills  abilities 
were  still  unknown,  except  to  the  British  Treasury  and  to  some 
circles  of  I.ondon  society.  1 he  Treasui  y ofTu  lals  knew  his  caparity 
to  handle  matters  entrusted  to  him.  But  it  was  not  supposed  by 
them  or  anyone  else  iliat  he  would  play  an  important  part  in 
peace-making.  His  youthfulness  itself  was  a handicap  in  a gather- 
ing of  the  most  famous  statesmen  of  Europe.  Did  he  make 
sufficient  efforts  to  draw  attention  to  his  own  existence^  It  has 
been  suggested  that  he  relied  too  much  on  the  inherent  soundness 
of  the  documents  he  wrote,  and  did  not  do  sufficient  “ lobbying  ” 
among  other  member.,  of  the  British  staff  of  his  own  standing. 
In  the  Civil  Service  it  is  important  that  members  of  different 
ministries  should  be  aware  of  each  other’s  views  and  play  into 
each  other’s  hands.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  in  the  Diary 
of  the  Peace  Conference  which  Mr  Harold  Nicolson  has  pub- 

* Austen  Chambcrlam  instrucled  that  on  the  Supreme  Lconomic  Counril  Keynes 
should  be  received  “ on  the  same  footmg  as  I sliould  if  I wcrc^rcsent,  namely  that  of 

St  full  member  with  full  rights  of  speech  and  decision  ** 


238  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

lished,  the  first  reference  to  Keynes  is  on  28th  May,  which  was 
towards  the  end  of  the  proceedings.  He  notes  Keynes’  views  as 
though  they  were  new  to  him. 


Extract  from  Diary  of  Mr,  Harold  Mcolson 

May  28.  Lunch  with  Maynard  Keynes.  Discuss  reparation 
chapter  of  the  Austrian  Ti  eaty.  We  ai  e fully  agreed  of  the  absurdity 
of  applying  to  Austria  the  German  reparation  and  indemnity 
clauses  Keynes  is  very  pessimistic  about  the  German  Treaty. 

He  considers  it  not  only  immoial  but  incompetent.  The  Germans 
can  gain  nothing  by  signing  and  lose  nothing  by  refusing  to  sign. 


Letter  to  Vita  Sackville-West,  28th  May 

. . . Keynes  has  been  too  splendid  about  the  Austrian  Treaty. 
He  is  going  to  fight.  He  sa^s  he  will  lesign 


Mr.  Hat  old  Nicolsort  to  his  fathet  [Lord  Cat  nock)  ^ 8th  June 

I have  tried,  with  ihe  help  of  the  Treasury  man,  who  is 
first-class,  to  water  down  the  Austnan  financial  claus(‘s,  but  was 
told  by  Sumner  to  mind  m\  ov\n  business.  An\  how  I think  v\c  shall, 
provided  IJoyd  George  wins  his  battle,  get  the  Germans  to  sign. 
God  help  us  if  we  can’t  ’ Ihcy  will  have  us  at  then  mercy. 

It  is  a well-established  fact  that  there  was  insufficient  getting 
together  or  pooling  of  ideas  by  the  experts  m Paris.  All  were 
working  at  full  pressure,  attending  to  day-by-day  crises,  as  well 
as  mapping  out  the  future  of  Europe.  Their  various  proposals 
were  submitted  and  modified  by  the  Big  Three,  no  doubt  usually 
in  a sense  hostile  to  the  enemy.  They  knew  little  of  what  the 
others  were  doing.  It  came  to  them  all  as  a great  shock  when  they 
first  saw  the  Treaty  as  a whole  immediately  before  it  was  presented 
to  the  Germans.  The  cumulative  effect  of  adverse  decisions 
separately  taken  had  produced  a Treaty  which,  considered  as  a 
whole,  was  quite  different  from  what  any  of  the  experts  had 
envisaged.  Thus  Keynes  was  not  alone  in  being  in  imperfect 
liaison  with  all  the  other  experts. 

He  did  wha^  he  could.  Mr.  Alw^n  Parker,  the  British 
Establishment  Officer  in  Paris,  produced  some  tea  in  the  afternoon, 


AST.  35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  239 

at  which  Eyre  Crowe,  Tyrrell  and  others  of  the  Foreign  Office 
appeared.  He  recalls  that  Keynes  was  often  there,  and  his  views 
would  thus  be  well  known  to  the  leading  members  of  the  Foreign 
Office.  Parker  kept  a diary  and  noted  down  this  portrait  by 
Eyre  Crowe,  which,  although  inaccurate  in  some  respects,  gives 
a typical  account  of  the  impicssion  made  by  Keynes  upon  an 
intelligent  observer  who  did  not  know  him  well. 

Then  the  Frenchman  began  t liking  about  ce  dtolt  de  co9ps  Mon- 
sieur Keynes y who  always  canies  aigument  to  a logical  extreme  and 
overworks  self-determination  to  such  a point,  regardless  of  Instory, 
tradition,  and  geographical  piopinquitv,  tliat  be  would  even  bestow 
it  on  Les  lies  Sorhn^ues  or  the  Isle  of  Wight  Ciowc  said  “ Oh,  you 
don’t  understand  Keynes,  and  foi  that  matter  neither  do  I,  but  a 
great  deal  depends  on  his  health  He  is  an  ilist  and  a bit  of  a 
genius  who  knows  quite  a lot  about  his  own  job  and  has  picked  up 
something  all  round  Put  him  111  the  lieasuiy  and  he  has  the 
horizon  of  a cupboard , but  jilant  him  in  fioni  of  a large  map  and 
he  has  the  lange  of  an  eagle,  quicksiglitcd  ind  faisightcd  m his  own 
purview,  though  in  politics  his  illustrations  aic  seldom  closely 
related  to  the  logic  That  is  because  he  has  as  little  aptitude  01  ta^^te 
for  polities  as  ycni  or  I have  for  the  lehnements  of  economic  specula- 
tion But  he  is  a very  clevei  man  and  has  the  talent  of  the  good 
learner  I am  much  more  sanguine  tin  in  I was  that  he  will  end  by 
realising  what  is  possible  and  reason.ible  even  in  legard  to  self- 
determination  Ihen  he  will  step  forw  nd  with  the  con\ii  tions  of  a 
proselyte  and  the  pieien')ions  of  a piophet  And  he  will  do  it  very 
well,  for  when  he  is  at  his  best  eveiy  word  te  Us  and  he  has  the  gift  of 
getting  the  greatest  p<  siblc  meaning  into  a small  compass  Like 
Mme  Du  Deffand  il  r t d'un  seiil  mot  tout  a nu^un  mot  peut  dire  He  is 
a truly  remarkable  man  and  has  a kind  of  ciitical  intuition  only  to 
be  paralleled  by  that  of  some  of  our  greatest  historians  and  scientists. 
I cannot  myself  cross-examine  him  about  his  figures  as  to  the  level 
of  Reparations,  but  there  aie  people  who  will  not  admit  them  as 
accurate  The  bent  of  his  mind  is  of  that  pcculiai  type  that  he  takes 
a positive  delight  in  argument  foi  its  own  sake  Manv  e f us  who  had 
frequent  contact  with  him  duiing  the  War  have  leaint  to  our  cost 
that  he  only  sees,  for  the  lime  being,  the  point  he  has  set  himself  to 
prove,  and  regardless  of  the  fact  that  he  has  proved  something  very 
diflferent  yesterday,  and  is  very  likeb  to  piovc  something  different 
still  tomorrow  He  can  bung  a converging  senes  of  arguments  to 
bear  upon  a single  point,  so  that  he  succeeds  in  making  everything 
else  seem  to  have  a minor  inteie  st  to  other  person^,  and  it  is  doubtful 


240  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1^x9 

if  it  even  has  a subordinate  interest  for  Keynes  himself.  His  opinions 
are  in  a perpetual  state  of  progress,  and  therefore  of  apparent  flux. 
He  never  shiinks  from  paradox  and  sometimes  seems  to  aim  at  it  for 
its  own  sake.  He  has  not  much  of  the  suaviter  in  modoy  but  he’s  a 
delightful  companion  and  does  some  very  kind  acts  by  stealth. 

On  certain  occasions  Keynes  was  able  to  work  closely  with 
Lloyd  George.  Mr.  Dudley  Ward  recalls  an  episode.  There 
was  a very  tangled  question  concerning  shipping  in  the  Adriatic, 
which  had  to  be  settled  by  th^  Council  of  Four  one  afternoon. 
Over  lunch  Keynes  and  Ward  reached  the  conclusion  that  they 
had  briefed  Lloyd  George  for  the  meeting  in  a sense  diametrically 
opposed  to  Biitish  intciests.  They  rushed  round  to  the  meeting. 
Lloyd  George  was  at  his  seat  in  the  semicircle  round  the  fire 
and  already  speaking  to  the  subject;  Dudley  Ward  judged  that, 
since  the  arguments  were  so  tangled  and  British  self-interest  must 
not  be  too  blatantly  advanced,  nothing  could  now  be  done. 
Keynes,  however,  look  up  half  a sheet  of  notepaper  on  which, 
having  advised  Llo)d  Geoigc  to  rc\cr>c  the  British  demand,  he 
summarised  with  a brevity  ^Va^d  would  not  have  believed  possible 
the  arguments  supporting  this  change.  Keynes  passed  the  paper 
to  Lloyd  Geoigc,  who  looked  at  it  quickly  and  proceeded.  He 
continued  on  the  same  lines  as  before.  Ward  was  confirmed  in 
his  idea  that  it  was  too  late  to  do  anything.  But  gradually,  as 
they  listened,  a gentle  trickle  of  thought  of  a new  kind  began  to 
appear  in  Lloyd  George’s  pleadings.  And  then  slowly,  as  he  took 
plenty  of  time  m making  his  case,  the  whole  trend  was  transformed, 
and  he  was  soon  using  all  Keynes’  arguments  on  the  opposite 
side ; he  .idded  an  admirable  one  of  his  own.  He  carried  the  day, 
and  Ward  is  sure  that  the  others  did  not  perceive  the  change  of 
front.  It  was  the  finest  example  which  he  ever  knew  of  co-opera- 
tion between  two  master  minds  to  achieve  what  at  first  seemed 
quite  impo<‘sible.  If  only  there  could  have  been  like  co-operation 
between  them  in  the  whole  business  of  peacemaking  1 

During  January  and  February  little  progress  was  made  on 
reparations  (or  on  other  questions).  On  the  Commission  there 
was  a complete  deadlock.  The  Americans  .refused  to  agree  to 
the  French  and  British  demand  that  the  Germans  should  pay 
the  full  cost  of  the  war,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  contrary  to  the 
terms  of  the  Armistice.  But  already  in  February  the  Americans 
were  making  certain  approaches  to  the  French,  which  were  to 
render  the  Sumner-Cunliffe  policy  abortive.  The  Americans 


35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  341 

pointed  out  that,  if  the  full  cost  of  the  war  was  put  into  the  bill, 
the  French  would  get  a much  smaller  share  than  if  the  claim 
were  confined  to  reparation  of  damage  proper.  And  as  even 
the  French  may  have  had  a suspicion,  in  their  heart  of  hearts, 
that  the  full  amount  would  never  be  paid,  they  saw  that  it  might 
be  against  their  interest  to  be  put  down  for  a smaller  share  in 
a larger  amount  rather  than  for  a larger  share  in  a sinaller  one. 
It  was  also  hinted  to  the  French  that  it  might  be  possible  to  per- 
suade Wilson  to  agree  to  an  affirmation  of  Germany  s theoretical 
liability  for  the  full  cost  of  the  war,  so  long  as  their  contractual 
liability  was  limited  to  the  amount  authorised  in  the  Armistice 
terms.  Such  an  affirmation  might  appease  popular  clamour  in 
France.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  famous  “ war-guilt  ” clause, 
which  aroused  such  indignation  in  Germany  in  the  inter-war 
period.  It  was  not  oiiginally  designed  to  humiliate  the  Germans 
but  to  reconcile  the  French  and  American  points  of  view.’ 

At  the  outset  the  Reparations  Commission  appointed  three 
sub-committees.  No  Power  had  more  than  one  representative. 
The  British  appear  to  have  managed  things  well,  since  Sumner, 
Cunliffc  and  Hughes  weie  the  chairmen  of  the  three  sub-com- 
mittees. The  deadlock  continued  on  the  main  questions  of  what 
Germany  was  hable  to  pay  and  what  she  was  able  to  pay. 

There  was  an  interlude  in  the  last  part  of  February  and 
beginning  of  March,  when  Wilson,  Lloyd  George  and  Clemcnceau 
were  out  of  action  foi  difleicnt  reasons.  When  Lloyd  George 
returned,  full  01  zest  for  getting  to  grips,  hope  levived  It  was 
decided,  on  loth  March,  to  set  up  a committee  of  three  “ experts  ”, 
to  report  diiectly  to  th»  Council  of  Four  on  reparations.  These 
were  Norman  Davis  (U.o.),  Loucheur  (France)  and  E.  S.  Montagu 
(Britain).  This  was  the  Montagu  who  was  President  of  the  Cam- 
bridge Union  in  Keynes’  first  term  and  had  invited  him  to  speak 
“ on  the  paper  ” ; he  was  now  Secretary  of  State  for  India  and 
a good  Liberal.  His  appointment  was  certainly  hopeful,  and  he 
would  take  Keynes’  ads  ’<  c . This  committee  soon  got  away  from 
unrealities.  Montagu  and  Davis  agreed  upon  £2000  million  (the 
figure  of  the  original  Treasury  draft)  as  the  amount  that  Germany 

* Tt  IS  interesting  to  notice  that  Keynes,  for  all  his  prescience  about  so  many 
matters,  did  not  perceive  that  this  clause  would  be  a cause  of  trouble  With  reference 
to  It  he  wrote  “ So  fai,  however,  all  thw  is  only  a maltei  ol  words,  oJ  virtuosity  of 
draftsmanship,  which  dots  no  one  any  harm,  and  whith  probably  seemed  much  more 
important  at  the  time  than  it  ever  will  again  between  now  andjudgment  Day.  For 
substance  we  must  turn  to  ^nnex  I'*  {The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,  p.  141)- 

R 


240  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

if  it  even  has  a subordinate  interest  for  Keynes  hiniself.  His  opinions 
arc  in  a perpetual  state  of  progress,  and  therefore  of  apparent  flux. 
He  never  shrinks  from  paradox  and  sometimes  seems  to  aim  at  it  for 
its  own  sake.  He  has  not  much  of  the  suaviter  in  modoy  but  he’s  a 
delightful  companion  and  does  some  very  kind  acts  by  stealth. 

On  certain  occasions  Keynes  was  able  to  work  closely  with 
Lloyd  George.  Mr.  Dudley  Ward  recalls  an  episode.  There 
was  a very  tangled  question  concerning  shipping  in  the  Adriatic, 
which  had  to  be  settled  by  the  Council  of  Four  one  afternoon. 
Over  lunch  Keynes  and  Ward  reached  the  conclusion  that  they 
had  briefed  Lloyd  George  for  the  meeting  in  a sense  diametrically 
opposed  to  British  interests.  They  rushed  round  to  the  meeting. 
Lloyd  George  was  at  his  scat  in  the  semicircle  round  the  fire 
and  already  speaking  to  the  subject ; Dudley  \Vard  judged  that, 
since  the  arguments  were  so  tangled  and  British  self-interest  must 
not  be  too  blatantly  advanced,  nothing  could  now  be  done. 
Keynes,  however,  took  up  lialf  a sheet  of  notepaper  on  which, 
having  advised  Llo>d  Geoigc  to  rexerse  the  British  demand,  he 
summarised  with  a brevity  Ward  would  not  have  believed  possible 
the  arguments  suppoi  ting  this  change.  Keynes  passed  the  paper 
to  Lloyd  George,  who  looked  at  it  quickly  and  proceeded.  He 
continued  on  the  same  lines  as  before.  Ward  was  confirmed  in 
his  idea  that  it  was  too  late  to  do  anything.  But  gradually,  as 
they  listened,  a gentle  trickle  of  thought  of  a new  kind  began  to 
appear  in  Lloyd  George’s  pleadings.  And  then  slowly,  as  he  took 
plenty  of  time  in  making  his  case,  the  whole  trend  was  transformed, 
and  he  was  soon  using  all  Keynes’  arguments  on  the  opposite 
side ; he  added  an  admirable  one  of  his  own.  He  carried  the  day, 
and  Ward  is  sure  that  the  others  did  not  perceive  the  change  of 
front.  It  was  the  finest  example  which  he  ever  knew  of  co-opera- 
tion between  two  master  minds  to  achieve  what  at  first  seemed 
quite  impossible.  If  only  there  could  have  been  like  co-operation 
between  them  in  the  whole  business  of  peacemaking  J 

During  January  and  February  little  progress  was  made  on 
reparations  (or  on  other  questions).  On  the  Commission  there 
was  a complete  deadlock.  The  Americans  .refused  to  agree  to 
the  French  and  British  demand  that  the  Germans  should  pay 
the  full  cost  of  the  war,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  contrary  to  the 
terms  of  the  Armistice.  But  already  in  February  the  Americans 
were  making  certain  approaches  to  the  French,  which  were  to 
render  the  Sumner-Cunliffe  policy  abortive.  The  Americans 


abt  353  FIRST  WORLD  WAR 

pointed  out  that,  if  the  full  cost  of  the  war  was  put  into  the  bill, 
the  French  would  get  a much  smaller  share  than  if  the  claim 
were  confined  to  reparation  of  damage  proper.  And  as  even 
the  French  may  have  had  a suspicion,  m their  heart  of  hearts, 
that  the  full  amount  would  nevei  be  paid,  they  saw  that  it  might 
be  against  their  interest  to  be  put  down  for  a smaller  share  in 
a larger  amount  rather  than  for  a largei  shaic  m a s uallei  one. 
It  was  also  hinted  to  the  Tiench  that  it  might  be  possible  to  per- 
suade Wilson  to  agree  to  an  afhimation  of  Germany  s theoretical 
liability  for  the  full  cost  of  the  war,  so  long  as  their  contractual 
liability  was  limited  to  the  amount  authorised  in  the  Armistice 
terms.  Such  an  affirmation  might  appease  popular  clamour  ^n 
Fiance  This  was  the  origin  of  the  famous  “ war -guilt  ” clause, 
which  aroused  such  indignation  in  Germany  in  the  mter-war 
period.  It  was  not  originally  designed  to  humiliate  the  Germans 
but  to  reconcile  the  French  and  American  points  of  view.* 

At  the  outset  the  Reparations  Coiiiniission  appointed  thiee 
sub-committccs.  No  Powci  had  more  than  one  representative. 
The  British  appear  to  have  managed  things  well,  since  Sumner, 
Cunlifie  and  Hughes  weie  tht  chairmen  of  the  three  sub-com- 
niittecs.  The  deadlock  continued  on  the  mam  questions  of  what 
Germany  was  liable  to  pay  and  what  die  was  able  to  pay. 

There  was  an  interlude  m the  last  part  of  Februaiy  and 
beginning  of  March,  when  Wilson,  Lloyd  Geoige  and  Clemenccau 
were  out  of  action  for  different  reasons.  When  Lloyd  George 
returned,  full  oi  zest  for  getting  to  grips,  hope  revived  It  was 
decided,  on  lolh  March,  to  set  up  a committee  of  three  “ experts 
to  leport  directly  to  the  Council  of  Four  on  leparations.  These 
were  Norman  Davis  (U  o Loucheur  France)  and  E.  S.  Montagu 
(Biitam)  1 his  was  the  Montagu  who  was  President  of  the  Cam- 
bridge Union  in  Keynes’  first  term  and  had  invited  him  to  speak 
“ on  the  paper  ” , he  was  now  Secretary  of  State  for  India  and 
a good  Liberal  His  appointment  was  certainly  hopeful,  and  he 
would  take  Keynes’  ad\  This  committee  soon  got  awa\  from 
unrealities.  Montagu  and  Davis  agreed  upon  £2000  million  (the 
figure  of  the  original  Treasury  draft)  as  the  amount  that  Geimany 

* It  IS  interesting  to  notice  that  Kevnes  lor  all  his  pi  (science  about  so  many 
matters,  <iid  not  putcive  that  this  clause  would  I a caus*  of  trouble  With  reierence 
to  It  he  wiote  ‘ So  far,  however,  all  this  is  onl>  a matter  of  words,  of  viituosity  of 
draftsmanship,  which  dots  no  one  any  harm,  and  which  probably  setmi  d much  more 
important  at  the  time  tlmi  it  ever  will  ap^ain  between  now  and  judgment  Day  For 
substance  we  must  turn  to  Apnex  I **  (The  Leonomte  C omequences  of  the  PtaUy  p 141) 

R 


242  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  Ix9i9 

would  be  able  to  pay  and  Loucheur  is  said  to  have  admitted 
that  he  agreed  privately,  although  he  could  not  be  so  quoted.* 
A report  was  suddenly  required  of  them  on  15th  March.  They 
did  not  dare  to  present  so  low  a figure,  and,  instead,  put  forward 
the  figure  of  £3000  million,  with  another  ^^3000  million  to  be  paid 
in  German  currency,  which  should  only  be  converted  when 
conditions  were  favourable.  In  view  of  this  last  proviso,  the 
proposal  was  not  unreasonable.  According  to  Mr.  Burnett, 
Lloyd  George  and  Glemenceau  were  both  convinced.^ 

But  on  17th  March  a memorandum  came  to  Lloyd  George 
from  Hughes,  Gunliffe  and  Sumner  proposing  a payment  to 
rise  to  £600  million  a year  in  1926  and  to  run  for  about  thirty- 
five  years  thereafter.^  Such  figures  were  still  not  far  from  the 
realms  of  fantasy.  On  the  next  day  the  “ experts  ” were  sum- 
moned back  by  the  Gouncil  of  Four  and  told  by  Lloyd  George 
of  the  official  British  proposal.  In  these  circumstances  Lloyd 
George  stated  that  he  could  not  abide  by  the  finding  of  the 
“ experts 

At  this  point  he  invited  Keynes  to  propose  a ^calc  of  payments 
which  would  yield  a total  sum  of  ^^5000  million.  I'his  must  have 
been  painful  work  for  Keynes.  But  at  least  Lloyd  George’s 
tendency  to  break  away  from  the  “ Heavenly  Twins  ” was  wel- 
come. He  worked  oht  a scheme,  with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  R.  H. 
Brand,  which  had  rising  annual  payments,  and  reached  a maxi- 
mum of  £400  million  a year  in  1951-60.  Although  this  involved 
total  payments  of  1,000  million  in  all,  at  5 per  cent  the  present 
value  was  only  £3800  million.^  This  was  unsatisfactory,  since 
the  figure  of  £3800  million  was  deemed  to  be  politically  unaccept- 
able. It  seems  strange  that  it  was  always  taken  for  granted  that 
the  wrathful  masses,  whose  profound  ignorance  on  these  economic 
topics  has  been  so  often  cited  as  the  main  obstacle  to  a wise  settle- 
ment, had  a perfect  understanding  of  the  significance  of  these  large 
figures  and  would  at  once  judge  that5(^38oo  million  was  a puny  sum. 

However,  at  this  time,  Lloyd  George  is  said  to  have  told  the 
Americans  that  ;(^5000  million  would  be  acceptable  to  him,  if 
only  they  could  get  Sumner  and  Gunliffe  to  agree.s  We  see 

* Reparation  at  the  Peace  Conference,  by  P.  M.  Burnett,  vol.  i,  p.  54.  The  statement  is 
based  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Davis. 

* Op,  cit,  p.  56.  3 Lloyd  Geoige’s  Memoirs  of  the  Peace  Conference,  p.  334. 

* They  accordingly  fell  it  necessary  to  add  a footnote  showing  a steeper  graduation 
of  payments,  which  ^would  give  a present  value  of  about  £4800  million,  but  they 
deprecated  this  footnote.  ^ Burnett,  vol.  i,  p.  59. 


AET.  35] 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


m 

clearly  the  baleful  influence  of  these  two.  They  were  associated 
in  the  public  mind  with  stern  treatment,  and  Lloyd  George  was 
not  prepared  to  face  his  public  on  a settlement  which  lacked 
their  blessing ! It  was  at  this  time  that  he  went  to  Fontainebleau, 
taking  Philip  Kerr  and  others  of  the  “ garden  suburb  ” with  him, 
and  composed  a memorandum  (25th  March)  which  was  liberal  in 
sentiment.  This  did  not  move  the  French,  however,  and  led  to  the 
interchange  of  sarcastic  letters  between  him  and  Clcmenceau.  At 
the  same  time  (25th  March)  a memorandum  by  Claude  Lowther, 
to  the  effect  that  Germany  should  bear  the  whole  cost  of  the  war 
was  circulated  to  all  members  of  Parliament  and  published  in  the 
The  Times,  Lloyd  George  scented  dangers  at  home. 

Meanwhile  two  major  developments  were  taking  place  in  the 
reparations  discussion  which  determined  the  final  settlement. 
The  first  was  the  idea  that  no  total  figure  for  reparations 
payments  should  be  mentioned  in  the  Peace  Treaty,  that  being 
left  to  be  determined  by  a permanent  Reparations  Commission 
(to  be  distinguished  from  the  Reparations  Commission  of  the 
Conference) . This  plan  has  been  severely  criticised.  It  meant  that 
Germany  could  not  regain  credit- worthiness  for  a long  period. 
No  one  knew  whether  those  who  sought  for  impracticable  sums 
would  not  prevail  on  the  Reparations  Commission.  Tlic  United 
States  was  at  that  time,  as  she  has  been  once  more,  the  main 
source  of  credit.  But  it  was  perfectly  clear  then  that  this  credit 
would  have  U come,  not  by  wjiy  of  government  loans,  but 
through  the  operations  of  private  financiers.  Therefore,  to 
render  Germany  uncredit-worthy  for  a long  term  of  years  was 
to  make  it  impossible  ^'or  her  to  find  means  of  recovery  or  to 
pay  substantial  reparations.  The  whole  of  Europe  would  suffer 
accordingly. 

It  is  easy  to  see  why  the  plan  was  attractive  at  the  time. 
Those  who  really  hoped  to  exact  very  large  sums  were  not  being 
invited  to  surrender  their  claims.  Those  who  only  wanted  to 
maintain  the  appearance  of  exacting  large  sums,  to  satisfy  their 
constituents,  had  their  faces  saved.  Genuine  liberals  could  argue 
that,  when  passions  had  had  time  to  cool,  the  Reparations  Com- 
mission would  abate  its  demands  and  had  powers  enough  to 
wangle  a satisfactory  settlement,  despite  the  clauses  of  the  Peace 
Treaty.  Lloyd  George  has  argued  that  such  was  his  own  view ; 
that  the  American,  British  and  Italian  representatives  would 
together  have  formed  a majority  on  the  Commission  in  favour  of 


24i  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [19x9 

leniency ; and  that  it  was  the  defection  of  the  Americans  which 
upset  the  apple-cart.* 

Between  25th  and  28th  March  there  was  a last  desperate 
attempt  to  reach  an  agreed  figure,  Sumner,  Gunliffe  and  Keynes 
negotiating  for  the  British ! On  28th  March  the  Council  of  Four 
decided  that  no  figure  should  be  inserted  in  the  Treaty. 

The  second  development  was  the  British  proposal  that  the 
value  of  separation  allowances  and  pensions  should  be  classed  as 
damage  inflicted  upon  the  civilian  population,  in  accordance 
with  the  Armistice  terms,  and  added  to  the  reparations  bill.  In 
regard  to  this  Keynes  wrote : “ If  words  have  any  meaning,  or 
engagements  any  force,  we  had  no  more  right  to  claim  for  those 
war  expenses  of  the  State,  which  arose  out  of  Pensions  and 
Separation  Allowances,  than  for  any  other  of  the  general  costs  of 
the  war.  And  who  is  prepared  to  argue  in  detail  that  we  were 
entitled  to  demand  the  latter  ? ^ Mr.  Burnett  has  indeed  shown 

conclusively  that  the  French  and  British  understood  quite  well 
at  the  time  of  the  Armistice  that  they  were  signing  away  their 
right  to  demand  the  full  costs  of  the  war.^  But  if  Wilson  could 
be  persuaded  that  the  inclusion  of  separation  allowances  and 
pensions  was  right,  a compromise  might  be  effected.  Such  a 
formula  would  yield*  a large  enough  total  for  the  French  realists 
to  feel  that  it  was  as  much  as  they  were  e\  cr  likely  to  get ; it 
would  satisfy  the  British.  But  at  first  Wilson  held  out.  Oddly 
enough,  he  was  finally  convinced  by  a memorandum  from  General 
Smuts,  the  most  enlightened  of  all  the  plenipotentiaries  at  Paris. 

Smuts  felt  indignant  that  under  the  pure  Wilsonian  formula 
Britain  would  get  so  little  by  way  of  reparation.  He  had  it  in 
mind  that  she,  and  not  France,  had  been  bearing  the  main  brunt 
of  the  war  during  the  last  two  years,  both  in  fighting  man-power 
and  in  money.  The  device  of  including  pensions  and  allowances 
would  secure  a larger  share  of  payments  for  Britain.  As,  in  Smuts’ 
view,  the  bill,  even  without  allowances  and  pensions,  exceeded 
Germany’s  capacity  to  pay  and  would  therefore  not  be  demanded 
in  full,  Germany  would  not  suffer  from  the  inclusion  of  these 
items  also.  They  would  swell  the  theoretical  total,  but  would  not 
increase  what  was  actually  demanded,  only  altering  its  distribu- 
tion among  the  Allies.  It  might  have  been  possible  to  justify  such 
a device  if  the  Allied  representatives  had  been  sensible  people, 

$ * Memoirs  of  the  Peace  Confnence,  p.  341. 

* Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,  p.  144.  ^ Burnett  op  at  ch.  i. 


ABT.  35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  ^45 

working  together  in  cordial  amity,  and  had  there  been  no  question 
of  asking  Germany  to  pay  more  than  she  was  really  able  to.  In 
the  actual  conditions  of  Paris,  it  was  ill-starred. 

On  the  1st  April  Wilson  agreed  to  the  inclusion  of  pensions 
and  allowances  under  the  influence  of  Smuts’s  memorandum.  But 
the  battle  was  not  yet  lost,  foi  one  major  point  remained  to  be 
settled,  and  a right  decision  on  this  would  render  the  inclusion  of 
pensions  and  allowances  nugatory.  This  was  the  question  of  the 
time  limit.  Throughout  these  discussions  Lloyd  George  empha- 
sized that  the  bill  against  Germany  should  be  cleared  within  the 
lifetime  of  the  generation  that  made  the  war.  This  was  usually 
taken  to  be  thirty  yeais.  So  long  as  thi<^  time  limit  was  observed, 
it  seemed  clear  that  Germany  could  not  be  asked  to  do  more  in 
total  than  meet  the  bill  as  assessed  before  the  inclusion  of  pensions 
and  allowances.  Thus,  when,  after  three  days  of  heated  debate 
among  the  experts,  the  point  about  the  time  limit  came  for  deci- 
sion to  the  Council  of  Four  on  5th  April,  Mr.  Davis  was  able  to 
say  that  President  Wilson  “ had  conceded  pensions  on  the  theoiy  that 
this  would  not  maieiially  increase  the  actual  amount  Germany  would  have  to 
pay,  but  would  lathei  affect  the  method  of  dtsUibuiion,  because  we  legatded 
Germany s capacity  as  being  agieed  to  as  within  the  ^o-yeai  limit  This 
was  the  Smuts  view.  Wilson’s  decision  about  pensions  was  the 
one  for  which  Keynes  took  him  most  severely  to  task.  But  it 
seems  that  the  really  operative  dec  ision  was  made  by  the  Council 
of  Four  on  5th  April  (House  then  representing  Wilson,  who  was 
unwell),  when  the  proposal  to  insert  a time  limit  in  the  Treaty 
was  dropped.  Thereafter  it  was  no  longer  possible  to  argue  that 
the  Germans  would  not  feel  the  full  weight  of  the  inclusion  of 
pensions  and  allowances,  and  that  this  only  affected  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  spoils  among  the  Allies.  Here  we  have  a striking 
example  of  how  Wilson’s  position  was  whittled  away. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  major  vital  decisions  (no 
fixed  sum,  in,clusion  of  pensions  and  allowances,  no  time  limit) 
were  reached  before  the  jjmous  telegram  from  380  Conseivative 
members  of  Parliament  arrived  on  8th  April.  None  the  less  the 
moral  of  those  who  stress  the  importance  of  this  telegram  is  correct. 
Lloyd  George’s  subseivience  to  Sumner  and  Gunliffe  reflected 
his  fear  of  hostile  Conservative  criticism  at  home. 

Thus  Keynes’  hopes  were  dashed  and  unreason  prevailed. 
But  it  was  difficult  on  this,  as  on  other  occasions,  to  cast  him 
* Burnett,  0^  nt  vol.  i,  p.  829 


246  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

down*  Defeated  on  one  line,  he  sought  another  way  out  of  the 
difficulties.  He  fell  back  on  his  position  as  chief  British  representa- 
tive on  the  Supreme  Economic  Council.  This  was  responsible 
for  the  actual  economic  conditions  of  the  moment,  which  were, 
in  all  conscience,  sufficiendy  deplorable.  Help  was  given  day 
by  day,  but  this  could  not  go  on  indefinitely.  There  was  clearly 
a gap  between  the  present  time  and  that  happy  time  when 
Germany  could  comfortably  pa>  ^500  million  a year  or  whatever 
it  might  be.  Was  it  not  the  duty  of  the  Supreme  Economic 
Council  to  endeavour  to  bridge  this  gap?  Accordingly  Keynes 
worked  upon  a scheme,  which  was  known  for  a time  as  “ The 
Keynes  Plan  This  was  for  an  issue  of  /^looo  million  bonds  by 
the  German  Government  (and  proportionate  issues  by  the  other 
enemy  governments),  one-fifth  to  be  used  for  the  purchase  of  food 
and  materials,  and  four-fifths  to  be  payable  on  reparations  account. 
Interest  was  to  be  guaranteed  jointly  and  sc\erally  by  the  enemy 
states,  with  priority  ovei  Reparations  pay  ments,  and  to  be  under- 
written by  the  Allied  and  Associated  governments,  as  well  as 
by  the  Scandinavian  governments  and  Holland  and  Switzerland, 
in  ccitain  proportions.  These  bonds  were  to  6c  acceptable  as 
fiist-class  collateral  for  loans  by  all  central  banks.  The  effect 
might  be  that  Federal  Reseivc  Banks  of  the  United  States  would 
be  asked  to  make  a loan  for  the  whole  amount,  or  a great  part 
of  it,  and  this  loan  would  temporarily  finance  not  only  the 
immediate  payment  of  icparations  by  Germany,  but  also  the 
immediate  payment  by  the  other  Allies  of  the  interest  on  their 
debt  to  the  United  States,  It  would  prevent  Germany  being 
immediately  stripped  of  all  her  working  c apital  and  would  assist 
the  Euiopean  Allies  to  carry  their  heavy  buiden.  It  was  indeed 
a sort  of  Marshall  plan,  albeit  on  a smallei  scale.  Europe  would 
be  screened  Irom  the  immediate  catastrophe  which  would  take 
place  when  the  reparation  clauses  of  the  "IVeaty  came  into  opera- 
tion. It  would  cover  a period  within  which  a change  of  heart 
might  occur  among  the  Allies,  so  that,  after  all,  the  European 
position  might  be  saved. 

lie  spent  a week  in  England  in  the  middle  of  April. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mis.  Keynes^  lyth  April  igig 

46  Gordon  Square 

I have  been  kept  about  here  until  to-day  getting  through  the 
Cabinet  a grand  scheme  for  the  rehabilitation  of  Europe. 


FIRST  WORLD  WAR 


AET.  35] 


247 


Austen  Chamberlain  (Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer)  wrote  to 
Lloyd  George  warmly  supporting  the  Keynes  Plan. 

Lloyd  George  sponsored  the  scheme  in  Paris  and  wrote  a fine 
covering  letter  to  President  ^Vilson.  But  this  time  it  was  the 
Americans  who  would  not  play.  The  U.S.  Treasury  affirmed  that 
it  was  unthinkable  that  (Congress  would  authorise  an  arrangement 
which  might  involve  the  Federal  Reserve  System  in  making  a 
large  loan  of  this  kind.  The  U.S.  Treasury  argued  that  already 
since  the  Armistice  they  had  authorised  loans  to  Europe  amounting 
to  £600  million,  a large  sum  for  peace-time,  — their  loans  during 
the  war  had  amounted  to  ;;Ci400  million,  — and  that  Congress 
would  go  no  further.  Keynes’  life  repeated  itself.  Was  not  his 
last  great  work  doing  with  success  what  he  failed  to  do  in  1919? 
The  attitude  of  the  Americans  had  changed  meanwhile. 

They  had  a good  excuse  in  1919  for  rejecting  this  pro- 
posed liability.  In  replying  to  Lloyd  George,  President  Wilson 
wrote  ; ^ 


You  have  suggested  that  we  all  address  oui selves  to  the  problem 
of  helping  to  put  (Tcrmany  on  her  feet,  but  how  can  your  experts  or 
ours  be  expected  to  work  out  a new  plan  to  furnish  working  capital 
to  Germany  when  we  deliberately  start  out  by  taking  away  all 
Germany’s  pie^ent  capital  How  can  anyone  expect  America  to 
turn  over  to  Germany  in  any  considerable  measure  new  working 
capital  to  take  the  place  of  that  which  the  European  nations  have 
determined  to  takf‘  from  her?  Such  (questions  would  appear  to 
answer  themselves,  but  I cannot  refrain  from  stating  them,  because 
they  so  essentially  belong  to  a candid  consideration  of  the  whole 
difficult  problem  to  w:>ich  we  are  addressing  ourselves,  with  as 
sincere  a desire  as  thai  of  their  colleagues  to  reach  a serviceable 
conclusion. 

Commenting  on  this,  Keynes  wrote  to  Philip  Kerr : 

The  President’s  letter,  as  it  Hands  however,  indicates  a spirit  far 
too  harsh  for  the  hum  u*  situation  facing  us.  In  particular,  it  is 
suiely  impossible  for  the  Americans  to  disclaim  responsibility  for  the 
Peace  Treaty  to  which,  wisely  or  not,  they  have  put  their  name 
equally  with  the  other  governments.  . . . It  is  also  worth  remember- 
ing that  while  the  Americans  greatly  criticised  the  aggregate  of  the 
indemnity  they  did  not,  so  far  as  I remember,  oppose  the  initial 
3(^1000  million.^  Yet  the  force  of  the  President’s  letter  entirely  turns 

> Woodrow  Wilson  and  World  Settlement,  by  R.  S.  Baker,  vyl.  iii,  p.  346. 

^ This  had  to  be  paid  by  the  Germans  before  1st  May  1921. 


248  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

on  the  inadvisability  of  exacting  this  sum  of  £1000  million,  . . . 
Nevertheless  controversy  on  the  above  lines  would  be  vain.  There 
is  a substantial  truth  in  the  President’s  standpoint  and  we  can  only 
look  for  fruitful  results  out  of  the  discussions  of  the  new  committee. 

Despite  this  set-back  Keynes’  initiative  might  have  had  some 
effect.  On  gth  May  the  Council  of  Four  set  up  a Committee  of 
Experts  (with  Lord  Robert  Cecil  and  Keynes  for  the  British 
Empire)  to  deal  with  the  problem.  Their  report  was  presented 
on  4th  June.  The  trouble  was  that  the  Americans  had  been 
unable  to  offer  much  money.  None  the  less,  this  Report,  agreed 
by  British,  French  and  American  delegates,  grappled  with  the 
problems  confronting  Europe,  and,  if  the  discussions  had  been 
kept  alive,  the  Americans  might  have  been  led  on  to  a more 
helpful  attitude.  But  the  Council  of  Four  had  lost  interest,  and 
it  never  considered  the  Report.  The  labours  of  its  collaborators 
had  been  in  vain. 

After  his  return  from  London  in  the  third  week  of  April, 
Keynes  had  found  that  Montagu,  to  whom  he  had  been  re- 
ferring foi  ministerial  decision,  had  left  Pan*.  At  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  Chancelloi  of  the  Exchequer,  an  arrangement 
was  now  made  by  which,  when  he  needed  ministerial  guidance 
on  the  spot,  he  shoi^ld  go  to  General  Smuts.  In  April  he  was 
attending  the  Council  of  Four  regularly  when  financial  and 
reparations  questions  were  discussed,  often  as  the  senior  British 
official  immediately  behind  Lloyd  George.  This  was  the  phase 
of  tidying  up  for  presentation  to  the  Germans.  The  clauses  did 
not  get  more  lenient  in  the  process. 

The  Peace  Treaty  was  presented  on  7th  May ; German  com- 
ments soon  began  to  come  in  and  their  full-length  reply  was 
received  on  29th  May.  Keynes  in  his  book  stressed  the  point 
that,  while  Lloyd  George  was  now  prepared  to  make  concessions, 
Wilson’s  attitude  stiffened.  The  latter  had  persuaded  himself 
that  the  Treaty,  as  drafted,  was  in  accordance  with  his  principles, 
thereby  greatly  deceiving  himself ; to  admit  the  German  criticisms 
would  imply  that  he  had  betrayed  his  own  cause;  this  was 
psychologically  impossible  for  him.  It  should  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  on  the  question  of  reparations  he  was  in  this  phase 
still  trying  to  get  a more  reasonable  settlement,  including  the 
naming  of  a fixed  sum. 

Keynes  made  a last  despairing  attempt  in  a note  handed  to 
Lloyd  George  oh  2nd  June,  on  the  basis  of  the  Germans  under- 


a*t.35]  first  world  war  249 

taking  the  physical  restoration  of  France  and  Belgium.  In  this 
note  he  estimated  the  total  claims  against  Germany  (including 
pensions  and  allowances)  at  ^^6300  million.®  He  suggested  a 
deduction  from  this  sum,  on  the  Austrian  precedent,  of  a share  of 
reparation  attributable  to  territory  to  be  ceded  under  the  Peace 
Treaty.  He  suggested  that  this  would  leave  £5000  million  — a 
convenient  sum,  as  the  draft  Treaty  had  made  specific  provision 
for  the  payment  of  at  least  that  amount.  From  this  he  deducted 
£2000  million  for  the  physical  restoration  and  proposed  that  the 
Germans  should  be  required  to  pay  the  balance  of  ^,3000  million 
spread  over  a reasonable  period,  without  interest.  But  it  was  all  in 
vain.  The  American  battle  to  get  a fixed  sum  inserted  failed. 

The  Treaty  was  signed  on  28th  June,  but  Keynes  had  already 
left  Paris. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynei,  14th  May  igig 

It  must  be  weeks  since  IVe  written  a letter  to  anyone,  — but  I’ve 
been  utterly  worn  out,  partly  bv  work  partly  by  depression  at  the 
evil  round  me.  I’ve  never  been  so  miserable  as  for  tlie  last  two  or 
three  weeks ; the  Peace  is  outrageous  and  impossible  and  can  bring 
nothing  but  misfortune  behind  it.  Personally  I do  not  believe  the 
Germans  will  sign,  though  the  general  view  is  to  the  contrary  (r.r. 
that  after  a few  moans  and  complaints  they  will  sign  anything). 
But  if  they  do  sign  this  will  be  in  many  ways  the  worse  alternative ; 
for  it  is  out  01  the  question  that  they  should  keep  the  terms  (which 
are  incapable  of  being  kept)  and  nothing  hut  general  disorder  and 
unrest  could  result,  .'lertainly  if  I was  in  the  Germans’  place  I’d 
rather  die  than  sign  s^ch  a Peace. 

Well,  I suppose  I’ve  been  an  accomplice  in  all  this  wickedness 
and  folly,  but  the  end  is  now  at  hand.  I am  writing  to  the  Tieasury 
to  be  relieved  of  my  duties  by  June  i if  possible  and  not  later  than 
June  15  in  any  event.  So  I ma  / just  be  back  in  time  for  the  tail  end 
of  the  May  Term. 

Apart  from  any  oth^‘r  reasons,  I am  quite  at  the  end  of  my  tether 
and  must  have  a holiday. 

I’ve  a letter  lying  unanswered  enquiring  if  I will  be  a candidate 
for  the  Directorship  of  the  London  School  of  Economics,  — pay 
£1500  or  perhaps  more.  1 shall  ask  a few  questions  about  it,  but 
have  no  intention  of  accepting.  I hope  father  agrees. 

* Cf.  the  official  finding  of  the  Reparations  Commission  nearly  two  years  later  of 
£6600  million. 


250  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

I am  supposed  to  be  sitting  to  John  for  my  portrait  for  his  Peace 
Conference  set ; but  there  has  been  no  time  so  far. 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  Duncan  Grants  14th  May  igig 

...  I have  been  as  miserable  for  the  last  two  or  three  weeks  as 
a fellow  could  be.  The  Peace  is  outrageous.  . . . Meanwhile  there 
is  no  food  or  employment  anywhere,  and  the  French  and  Italians 
arc  pouring  munitions  into  Central  Europe  to  arm  everyone  against 
everyone  else.  I sit  in  my  room  hour  after  hour  receiving  deputa- 
tions from  the  new  nations.  All  ask,  not  for  food  or  raw  materials, 
but  primarily  for  instruments  of  war  against  their  neighbours.  . . . 

One  most  bitter  disappointment  was  the  collapse  of  my  grand 
scheme  for  putting  everyone  on  their  legs.  After  getting  it  success- 
fully through  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  the  Prime 
Minister  and  seeing  it  formally  handed  to  Wilson  and  Clemcnceau, 
the  American  Treasury  (from  whom  no  more  was  asked  than  any 
one  else)  turns  it  formally  down  as  a most  immoral  proposal  which 
might  cost  them  something  and  which  senators  from  Illinois  would 
not  look  at.  They  had  a chance  of  taking  a laijge,  or  at  least  a 
humane,  view  of  the  world,  but  unhesitatingly  refused  it.  Wilson, 
of  whom  I have  seen  a good  deal  more  lately,  is  the  greatest  fraud 
on  earth. 

The  weather  is  very  fine.  I spent  last  week-end  in  Fontainebleau 
Forest  and  tried  to  get  to  Chartres,  but  was  defeated  by  two  punctures 
to  my  motor.  Do  write  to  me  and  remind  me  that  there  are  still 
some  decent  people  in  the  world.  Here  I could  cry  all  day  for  rage 
and  vexation.  The  world  cannot  be  quite  as  bad  as  it  looks  from  the 
Majestic. 

A week  or  two  ago  I went  to  a Matisse  exhibition  and  enclose  the 
catalogue.  I like  the  latest  least.  Am  I right  in  thinking  that  he  is 
becoming  almost  academic  ? . . . 


Austen  Chamberlain  to  J.  M.  Keynes^  21st  May  igig 

Bradbury  has  just  shown  me  your  letter  of  the  19th.  I know  how 
great  a sacrifice  of  personal  inclination,  and  even  more,  you  have 
made  in  continuing  your  work  for  us  in  Paris.  On  your  side  I think 
you  know  how  much  I have  valued  and  appreciated  the  enormous 
assistance  which  you  have  given  us.  . . . 

Bradbury  will  write  to  you  as  to  the  other  members  of  the  staff 
but  I could  not  leave  to  him  the  expression  of  my  strong  feeling  that 
a continuation  of  your  services  for  the  present  is  of  great  importance 


35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  251 

in  the  public  interest,  nor  can  I refrain  from  making  my  personal 
appeal  to  you  to  continue  your  help  until  the  situation  is  more 
clearly  defined. 


J,  M.  Keynes  to  Austen  Chambedainy  26th  May  igiQ 

I appreciate  your  letter  very  much,  just  as  I have  had  good 
reason  to  appreciate  my  treatment  by  the  Tieasuiy  all  through; 
' and  if  my  only  grounds  for  leaving  were  the  need  of  a rest  and  the 
desire  to  get  back  to  my  own  work,  I could  not  resist  your  appeal. 
But  that  is  not  the  position.  I was  so  anxious  to  leave  this  Confei  ence 
on  general  grounds  that  I did  not  like  to  make  <oo  much  fuss  about 
my  reasons  arising  out  of  my  disagreement  with  the  policy  which  is 
being  pursued  here.  But  1 stated  them  in  mv  previous  letter  and  to 
me  they  are  very  real  and  important.  We  have  presented  a Draft 
Treaty  to  the  Germans  which  contains  in  it  much  that  is  unjust  and 
much  more  that  is  inexjredient.  Until  the  last  moment  no  one 
could  appreciate  its  full  bearing.  It  is  now  right  and  necessary  to 
discuss  it  with  the  Germans  and  to  be  ready  to  make  substantial 
concessions.  If  this  policy  is  not  pursued,  the  consequences  will  be 
disastrous  in  the  extreme. 

If,  therefore,  the  decision  is  taken  to  discuss  the  Treaty  with  the 
Germans  with  a view  to  substantial  changes  and  if  our  policy  is  such 
that  it  looks  as  if  I can  be  of  real  use,  I am  ready  to  stay  another  two 
or  three  weeks.  But  if  the  decision  is  otherwise,  I fear  that  I must 
resign  immevhat<  ly.  1 cannot  express  how  strongly  I feel  as  to  the 
gravity  of  what  is  in  front  of  us,  and  I must  have  my  hands  quite  free. 
I wish  I could  talk  to  you  about  the  whole  miserable  business.  The 
Prime  Minister  is  leading  us  all  into  a morass  of  destruction.  The 
.settlemenr  which  he  is  proposing  for  Europe  disrupts  it  economically 
and  must  depopulate  it  by  millions  of  persons.  The  New  States  wc 
are  setting  up  cannot  survive  in  such  surroundings.  Nor  can  the 
peace  be  kept  or  the  League  of  Nations  live.  How  can  you  expect  me 
to  assist  at  this  tragic  farce  an^  longer,  seeking  to  lay  the  foundation, 
as  a Frenchman  puts  ^ “ d’une  guerre  juste  et  durable 

The  Prime  Minister  s present  Austrian  policy  puts  me  in  an  equal 
difficulty.  Lords  Sumner  and  Cunliffe  have  produced  a Reparation 
Draft  of  which  I have  already  sent  you  a copy.  Now  General  Smuts 
and  I are  invited  to  join  their  deliberations.  But  the  British  repre- 
sentation cannot  be  fundamentally  divided  against  itself,  and  it  is 
necessary  to  choose.  I append  a letter  which  General  Smuts  has 
written  to  the  Prime  Minister  about  this.  [He  refused  to  serve.]  I 
also  enclose  two  of  Sir  F.  Oppenheimer’s  latest  tblegrams. 


252  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

J.  Mk  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes^  ist  June  igig 

Pardy  out  of  misery  for  all  that’s  happening,  and  partly  from 
prolonged  overwork,  I gave  way  last  Friday  and  took  to  my  bed 
suffering  from  sheer  nervous  exhaustion.  There  I’ve  remained  more 
or  less  ever  since,  rising  only  for  really  important  interviews  and  for 
a daily  stroll  in  the  Bois,  with  the  result  that  I’m  already  much 
better.  My  first  idea  was  to  return  to  England  immediately,  but 
General  Smuts,  with  whom  I’ve  been  working  very  intimately  for 
changes  in  this  damned  Treaty,  p^uaded  me  that  it  was  my  dut>\ 
to  stay  on  and  be  available  if  necessary  for  the  important  discussions 
of  these  present  days,  declaring  that  one  can  only  leave  the  field  of 
battle  dead.  However  the  business  will  soon  be  determined  and  then, 
I hope  in  two  or  three  days  at  latest,  I return  to  England  foiever,  — 
bar  certain  very  improbable  changes  in  the  possibilities  of  the  case. 

I dragged  myself  out  of  bed  on  Friday  to  make  a final  protest 
before  the  Reparation  Commission  against  murdering  Vienna,  and 
did  achieve  some  improvement. 

The  German  reply  is  of  unequal  merit  but  remains  an  un- 
answerable exposure  of  all  our  wickedness. 

Don’t  think  me  more  broken  down  than  I amf  I eat  and  sleep 
well  and  there’s  nothing  whatever  the  matter  except  fatigue. 

I have  left  the  Majestic  and  am  living  in  a flat  on  the  edge  of  the 
Bois,  which  is  quiet  ^nd  where  I am  very  well  tended. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes^  3rd  June  igig 

I am  living  alone  in  a flat,  which  has  been  lent  to  me,  on  the 
edge  of  the  Bois  with  an  excellent  French  cook  and  a soldier  servant 
to  valet  me,  and  am  getting  on  splendidly,  - - otherwise  I would 
most  certainly  have  sent  for  you  at  once.  1 spend  more  than  half  of 
my  time  in  bed  and  only  rise  for  interviews  with  the  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer,  Smuts,  the  Prime  Minister  and  such.  Dudley  Ward 
comes  down  twice  a day  with  the  news.  I am  indeed  so  much  better 
that  only  extreme  prudence  in  matters  of  health  keeps  me  secluded 
at  all.  But  I distinctly  looked  over  the  edge  last  week,  and,  not 
liking  the  prospect  at  all,  took  to  my  bed  instantly. 

The  P.M.,  poor  man,  would  like  now  at  the  eleventh  hour  to 
alter  the  damned  Treaty,  for  which  no  one  has  a word  of  defence, 
but  it’s  too  late  in  my  belief  and  for  all  his  wrigglings  Fate  must  now 
march  on  to  its  conclusion.  I feel  it  my  duty  to  stay  on  here  so  long 
as  there  is  any  chance  of  a scheme  for  a real  change  being  in  demand. 
But  I don’t  expect  any  such  thing.  Anyhow  it  will  soon  be  settled 
and  I bound  for  home. 


ABT  35]  FIRST  WORLD  WAR  ^53 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  Mormon  Dams,  5th  June  igig 

I am  slipping  away  on  Saturday  ft  ora  this  scene  of  nightmare. 
I can  do  no  more  good  here  You  Americans  are  broken  reeds,  and 
I have  no  anticipation  of  anv  real  impiovemcnt  in  the  state  of  affairs. 


J.  M.  Keynes  to  David  Lloyd  Geoiqe,  glh  June  igig 

I ought  to  let  you  know  that  on  Saturday  1 am  slipping  away 
from  this  scene  of  nightmare  I can  do  no  moic  grind  here  I’ve 
gone  on  hoping  even  through  thee  Iasi  dreadful  weeks  that  you’d 
find  some  way  to  make  of  the  Treaty  a just  and  expedient  dot  ument 
But  now  it’s  apparently  too  late.  Ihe  battle  is  lost  1 leave  the 
twins  to  gloat  over  the  devastation  of  Europe  and  to  assess  lO  taste 
what  remains  foi  the  Biitish  taxpayer 


CHAPTER  VII 


“THE  ECONOMIC  CONSEQUENCES 
OF  THE  PEACE” 

1 

WE  hdvc  seen  that  in  the  later  period  at  Paris,  Keynes 
was  in  close  consultation  with  General  Smuts,  who  ai^reed 
with  his  opinions.  Towards  the  end  Keynes  broached 
the  project  of  writing  a book  to  describe  the  whole  sorry  story ; 
and  Smuts  strongly  encouraged  him. 


J,  M.  Keynet  to  0.  T.  Falk,  sjth  June  igig 

. . . On  Monday  I actually  began  wilting  a book  about  the 
economic  condition  of  Europe,  but  may  not  perseveie  with  it 

This  was  stage  flight,  which  soon  passed  off.  He  had  not  yet 
matured  his  plan. 

The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace  was  written  during 
August  and  September  at  Charleston  and  appeared  on  the  book- 
stalls in  December.  It  made  his  name  famous  m many  lands, 
and  also  infamous  in  many  straitlaced  circles.  It  was  his  deep 
anguish  of  soul  that  urged  him  to  write  and  his  utter  fearlessness 
that  carried  the  project  forward.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  flout 
the  mighty  and  to  outrage  prevailing  opinion.  He  sought  to 
change  that  opinion.  In  order  to  do  so,  he  was  ready  to  sacrific  e 
his  own  worldly  interests.  In  the  event  he  did  both.  His  influence 
on  the  British  public  was  profound  and  rapid ; in  1924  the  French 
themselves  became  a party  to  a provisional  reparations  plan  of  a 
reasonable  chareicter ; but  he  remained  an  outlaw  from  British 
official  circles  for  many  years  afterwards. 

In  the  following  pages  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  assess  the 
value  of  this  work  as  a contribution  to  the  economics  and  politics 
of  the  day.  We  have  the  advantage  of  our  acquaintance  with 
subsequent  events.  Opinion  has  fluctuated  in  its  judgment  of  the 

*54 


abx.36]  economic  consequences  255 

book,  and  even  now  the  time  may  not  yet  be  ripe  for  a final  verdict. 
But  however  it  be  rated  for  political  sagacity,  it  has  another 
quality  which  entitles  its  author  to  the  very  highest  rank.  The 
Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace  takes  its  place  as  one  of  the  finest 
pieces  of  polemic  in  the  English  language.  The  broad  philo- 
sophical considerations,  clearly  marshalled,  with  which  it  opens; 
the  fresh  limpid  style,  the  sparkling  phrases,  the  sense  of  drama ; 
the  story  unfolding  stage  by  stage  so  that  interest  never  flags ; 
the  comfortable  authority  of  a man  speaking  with  complete 
knowledge  of  his  subject  and  clearly  of  intellectual  eminence ; the 
ruthless  and  terrible  character  sketches  presented  suddenly  with 
great  originality,  invective  of  quite  a different  character  from 
that  found  in  the  old  masters,  and  hints  that  the  author  well 
understands  his  victims’  good  qualities  also  - - hints  which  do  not 
strike  the  reader  as  a mere  ruse,  but  as  reflecting  a genuinely 
judicial  quality;  the  arch-villain  of  the  piece,  Clemenceau, 
presented  as  a most  lovable  person ; the  story  proceeding  into 
elaborate  statistics,  which  never  weigh  down  the  pages,  but  are 
welded  into  the  irresistible  logic  of  the  argument ; insensate  folly 
leading  to  tragedy ; a vision  of  the  suffering  victims,  hungry, 
patient,  not  ready  to  revolt,  but  with  a smouldering  rage  that  may 
well  work  havoc  ; dark  forebodings ; a prophecy  of  woes  to  come 
which  is  vague  in  outline  and  thereby  more  convincing;  the 
whole  wrought  into  an  artistic  unity  by  an  argument  which  moves 
breathlessly  f-  'm  first  word  to  last  — these  qualities  combine  to 
create  a great  masterpiece. 

The  book  is  seldom  read  nowadays.  People  feel  that  they 
know  what  it  says  and  have  nothing  to  learn  from  it.  They 
may  be  alarmed  — needlessly  — by  the  thought  of  statistics,  now 
obsolete,  concerning  coal  and  gold  and  foreign  trade.  This  is  a 
mistake.  There  are  a number  of  matters  — the  evils  of  inflation 
and  price  control  — which  continue  to  be  of  live  interest.  The 
German  problem  is  still  with  us.  But,  beyond  all  this,  there  is  the 
pleasure  to  be  obtained  from  it  as  a work  of  art.  We  still  read 
Pascal’s  Provincial  Inters  with  delight,  although  not  many  still 
regard  the  distinction  between  efficacious  and  sufficient  grace  as 
a live  issue. 

The  original  manuscript  included  portraits  of  the  Big  Three. 
On  consideration  Keynes  decided  that,  since  he  had  so  recently 
served  Lloyd  George,  the  main  section  about  him  should  be 
omitted.  It  was  shown  to  Asquith,  who  thbught  it  a true 


256  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

portrait,  and  was  subsequently  published,  along  with  a reprint 
of  the  description  of  the  Council  of  Four,  in  Essays  in  Biography 
(1933).  But  one  does  not  appreciate  the  full  value  of  the  portraits 
by  reading  them  in  isolation.  Their  interest  is  immensely 
enhanced  when  they  are  placed  against  the  background  of  the 
European  scene,  as  described  in  the  original  book.  A reprint 
of  this  should  be  issued  with  the  portrait  of  Lloyd  George  included, 
Keynes  wrote  another  piece  about  the  Paris  Conference,  his 
Memoir  on  Melchior  (published  1949).  Chronologically,  the 
events  described  come  at  an  early  phase  of  the  Peace  Conference 
narrative.  In  a reprint  of  the  book,  however,  it  should  not  be 
placed  at  the  beginning,  but  in  an  appendix.  The  tone  and 
temper  of  much  of  it  are  totally  different  from  those  of  the  book 
itself,  and  its  inclusion  in  the  text  would  spoil  the  artistic  unity. 
In  “ Melchior  ’’  the  personal  comment  is  much  more  acid.  Keynes 
wrote  it  at  a time  of  extreme  bitterness,  to  satisfy  a personal 
impulse,  and  he  was  not  restrained  by  the  desire  for  a favourable 
verdict  from  all  men  of  general  good  sense.  Those  who  hold  that 
the  poi  traits  in  the  Economic  Consequences  were  heightened  in  order 
to  titillate  public  opinion,  should  compare  them  with  what  he 
wrote  when  he  was  merely  giving  vent  to  his  own  private  thoughts. 
One  is  struck  at  once  with  the  restraint  and  dignity  of  the  former. 

It  can  seldom  have  happened  that  one,  who  had  a month 
or  two  earlier  been  playing  a notable  part  in  a tense  drama  of 
great  moment  in  world  history,  was  able  then  to  summarise  it 
with  the  imaginative  power  shown  in  the  following  passage.  This 
belongs  to  the  Lloyd  George  section  and  was  not  printed  in  the 
original  book.  The  “ King  ” is  Clemenceau. 

But  it  is  not  appropriate  to  apply  to  him  [Lloyd  Geoige]  the 
ordinary  standards.  How  can  I convey  lo  the  leader,  who  does  not 
know  him,  any  just  impression  of  this  extraordinary  figure  of  our 
time,  this  syren,  this  goat-footed  bard,  this  half-human  visitor  to  our 
age  from  the  liag-ridden  magic  and  enchanted  woods  of  Celtic 
antiquity?  One  catches  in  his  company  that  flavour  of  final 
purposelessness,  inner  irresponsibility,  existence  outside  or  away 
from  our  Saxon  good  and  evil,  mixed  with  cunning,  remorselessness, 
love  of  power,  that  lend  fascination,  enthralment,  and  terror  to  the 
fair-seeming  magicians  of  North  European  folklore.  Prince  Wilson 
sailing  out  from  the  West  in  his  barque  George  Washington  sets  foot 
in  the  enchanted  castle  of  Paris  to  free  from  chains  and  oppression 
and  an  ancient  yurse  the  maid  Europe,  of  eternal  youth  and  beauty, 
his  mother  and  his  bride  in  one.  There  in  the  castle  is  the  King  with 


abx.36]  economic  consequences  357 

yellow  parchment  face,  a million  years  old,  and  with  him  an  en- 
chantress with  a harp  singing  in  the  Prince’s  own  words  to  a magical 
tune.  If  only  the  Prince  could  cast  off  the  paralysis  which  creeps  on 
him  and,  crying  to  heaven,  could  make  the  Sign  of  the  Cross,  with  a 
sound  of  thunder  and  crashing  glass  the  castle  would  dissolve,  the 
magicians  vanish,  and  Europe  leap  to  his  arms.  But  in  this  fairy-tale 
the  forces  of  the  half-world  win  and  the  soul  of  Man  is  subordinated 
to  the  spirits  of  the  earth. » 

Of  Clemenceau  he  wrote  : 

He  felt  about  France  what  Pei  ides  felt  of  Athens  - - unique  value 
in  her,  nothing  else  mattering;  but  his  theeny  of  politics  w'as 
Bismarck’s.  He  had  one  illusion  — France ; and  one  disillusion  — 
mankind,  including  Frenchmen  and  his  colleagues  not  Icast.^ 

And  of  Wilson : 

At  the  crisis  of  his  fortunes  the  President  was  a lonely  man. 
Caught  up  in  the  toils  of  the  Old  Woild,  he  stood  in  great  need  of 
sympathy,  of  moral  support,  of  the  enthusiasm  of  the  masses.  But 
buried  in  the  Conference,  stifled  in  the  hot  and  poisoned  atmosphere 
of  Paris,  no  echo  reached  liim  from  the  outer  world,  and  no  throb  of 
passion,  sympathy,  or  encouragement  from  his  silent  constituents  in 
all  countries.  He  felt  that  the  blaze  of  popularity  which  had  greeted 
his  arrival  in  Europe  was  already  dimmed ; the  Paris  Press  jeered 
at  him  openly ; his  political  opponents  at  liomc  weie  taking  advan- 
tage of  his  absence  to  create  an  atmosphere  against  him  ; England 
was  cold,  critical,  and  unresponsive.  He  had  so  formed  his  entowage 
that  he  did  not  receive  through  private  channels  the  current  of  faith 
and  enthusiasm  of  w^  Ich  the  public  sources  seemed  dammed  up. 
He  needed,  but  lacked,  the  added  sliength  of  collective  faith.  The 
German  terror  still  overhung  us,  and  even  the  sympathetic  public 
was  very  cautious ; the  enemy  must  not  be  encouraged,  our  friends 
must  be  supported,  this  was  not  the  time  for  discord  or  agitations,  the 
President  must  be  trusted  to  do  his  best.  And  in  this  drought  the 
flower  of  tbc  President’s  faith  withered  and  dried  up.^ 

The  President’s  attitude  to  his  colleagues  had  now  become : I 
want  to  meet  you  so  far  as  I can ; I see  your  difficulties  and  I should 
like  to  be  able  to  agree  to  what  you  propose ; but  I can  do  nothing 
that  is  not  just  and  right,  and  you  must  first  of  all  show  me  that  what 
you  want  does  really  fall  within  the  words  of  the  pronouncements 

Essays  in  Biography,  pp.  36-7.  , 

* The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,  p.  29.  Ibid.  pp.  4^-5. 

S 


358  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

which  are  binding  on  me.  Then  began  the  weaving  of  that  web  of 
sophistry  and  Jesuitical  exegesis  that  was  finally  to  clothe  with 
insincerity  the  language  and  substance  of  the  whole  Treaty.  The 
word  was  issued  to  the  witches  of  all  Paris  : 

Fair  is  foul,  and  foul  is  fair, 

Hover  through  the  fog  and  filthy  air. 

The  subtlest  sophisters  and  most  hypocritical  draftsmen  were  set 
to  work,  and  produced  many  ingenious  exercises  which  might  have 
deceived  for  more  than  an  hour  a cleverer  man  than  the  President.  * 

At  last  the  woik  was  finished ; and  the  President’s  conscience 
was  still  intact.  In  spite  of  everything  I believe  that  his  temperament 
allowed  him  to  leave  Paris  a really  sincere  man ; and  it  is  probable 
that  to  this  day  he  is  genuinely  convinced  that  the  Treaty  contains 
practically  nothing  inconsistent  with  his  former  professions. 

But  the  work  was  too  complete,  and  to  this  was  due  the  last 
tragic  episode  of  the  drama.  I'he  reply  of  BrockdorfT-Rantzau 
inevitably  took  the  line  that  Germany  had  laid  down  her  arms  on 
the  basis  of  certain  assurances,  and  that  the  Tieaty  in  many  par- 
ticulars was  not  consistent  with  these  assuranfes.  But  this  was 
exactly  what  the  President  could  not  admit ; in  the  sweat  of  solitary 
contemplation  and  with  prayers  to  God  he  had  done  nothiriti  that 
was  not  just  and  right  ; for  the  President  to  admit  that  the  (German 
reply  had  force  in  it  was  to  destrc>y  his  self-respect  and  to  disrupt  the 
inner  equipoise  of  his  soul ; and  every  instinct  of  his  stubborn  nature 
rose  in  self- protect  ion.  In  the  language  of  medical  psychology,  to 
suggest  to  the  President  that  the  Treaty  was  an  abandonment  of  his 
professions  was  to  touch  on  the  raw  a Freudian  ct)mplex.  It  was  a 
subject  intolerable  to  discuss,  and  every  subconsi  ious  instinct  plotted 
to  defeat  its  further  exploration. 

Thus  it  was  that  Clemenceau  brought  to  success  what  had 
seemed  to  be,  a few  months  before,  the  extraordinary  and  impossible 
proposal  that  the  Germans  should  not  be  heard.  If  only  the  Presi- 
dent had  not  been  so  conscientious,  if  only  he  had  not  concealed 
from  himself  what  he  had  been  doing,  even  at  the  last  moment  he 
was  in  a position  to  have  recovered  lost  ground  and  to  have  achieved 
some  very  considerable  successes.  But  the  President  was  set.  His 
arms  and  legs  had  been  spliced  by  the  surgeons  to  a certain  posture, 
and  they  must  be  broken  again  before  they  could  be  altered.  To  his 
horror,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  desiring  at  the  last  moment  all  the 
moderation  he  dared,  discovered  that  he  could  not  in  five  days 
persuade  the  President  of  error  in  what  it  had  taken  five  months  to 
* *The  Ecotiomtt  Consequences  of  tlie  Pectee,  p.  47, 


AET  36]  ECONOMIC  CONSEQ,UENCES  259 

prove  to  him  to  be  and  right  After  all,  it  was  harder  to  de- 
bamboozle  this  old  Piesbyterian  than  it  had  been  to  bamboozle 
him , for  the  foi  mcr  involved  his  bclit  1 in  and  respect  for  himself 

Thus  in  the  list  act  the  President  stood  for  stubboinness  and  a 
refusal  of  conciliations  ^ 

1 he  book  closes  with  the  words 

We  ha\e  been  moved  alreadv  bevond  endurance,  and  need  lest 
Never  in  the  lifetime  of  men  now  living  has  the  universal  element  in 
the  soul  of  man  burnt  so  dimly 

For  these  reasons  the  true  \oice  of  the  new  gem  ration  has  not 
yet  spoken,  and  silent  opinion  is  not  yet  formed  lo  the  formation 
of  the  general  opinion  of  the  future  1 dedicate  this  book  2 

Before  proceeding  to  our  assessment,  we  may  considei  one 
criticism  which  has  often  been  made  It  is  iicl  that  justice  was 
not  done  to  the  Big  Ihree,  who  were,  after  all,  great  men,  giants 
in  their  age  If  only  comparable  leadeis,  it  is  well  argued,  could 
have  been  found  to  guide  oui  destinies  in  the  twenty  ycais  which 
followed,  what  a much  better  place  the  woild  iiiight  have  been 
It  IS  lacking  in  all  sense  of  proportion  to  present  them  as  evil  or 
ridiculous  figures 

The  justice  of  the  plea  on  behalf  of  these  three  may  well  be 
admitted  IS  one  the  less,  this  cnticism  can  be  completely  met 
These  sketches  were  not  intended  by  their  authoi  as  full-length 
portiaits  of  Ills  subjects  to  be  hung  in  the  shime  dedicated  to  our 
ancestors  T1  bc^ok  was  not  wntten  as  a definitive  historv  of  the 
Peace  Conference  It  was  quite  intentionally  designed  as  a pol- 
emic , It  w IS  composed  in  two  months  at  a white  heat  of  passion, 
immediately  after  the  e>  c nts  It  soucdit  to  influence  public  opinion 
at  once  1 urope  was  disintegrating  and  must  be  saved  Keynes 
did  not  attempt  to  portray  all  the  eharaetenstics  of  his  subjects, 
but  only  those  relevant  to  the  matter  in  hand,  aad  in  particular 
those  which  caused  the  mistakes  to  be  made.  He  was  telling  his 
public  that  the  Peace  Treaty  was  an  act  of  wickedness  and  folly. 
“ How  can  this  lie  so  ^ ” licy  might  reply  “ We  do  not  know  the 
facts  and  believe  that  you  must  have  distorted  them,  since  Wilson 
w e know  to  be  neither  wicked  nor  foolish  And  is  not  Lloy  d George 
a life-long  Liberal^  ” He  did  not  distort  the  facts,  the  docu- 
ments have  on  the  whole  confirmed  his  account  It  was  necessary 
for  him  to  explain,  therefore,  how  it  could  be  that  these  two  men, 
each  trusted  in  their  different  ways,  became  parties  to  the  trans- 
* Ibid  pp  49-50  * Ibid  p 279 


26o  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

action.  To  do  so,  he  had  to  show  certain  weaknesses  in  sharp 
relief.  The  sketches  only  give  part  of  the  truth ; in  this  he  carried 
out  his  own  programme,  clearly  announced. 

The  disillusion  was  so  complete,  that  some  of  those  who  had 
trusted  most  hardly  dared  speak  of  it.  Gould  it  be  true  ? they  asked 
of  those  who  returned  from  Paris.  Was  the  Treaty  really  as  bad  as 
it  seemed  ? What  had  happened  to  the  President  ? What  weakness 
or  what  misfortune  had  led  to  so  extraordinary,  so  unlooked-for  a 
betrayal  ? 

Yet  the  causes  were  very  ordinary  and  hnman.* 

These  were  his  terms  of  reference.  He  was  perfectly  entitled 
to  keep  within  them.  Indeed,  it  would  have  been  wrong  to  have 
done  otherwise.  It  would  have  been  irrelevant,  and  therefore 
injurious,  and  probably  beyond  his  competence,  to  have  given 
full-length  portraits  of  these  historic  figures. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  M.  Mantoux,  arch-critic  of  the 
book,  is  satisfied  with  the  portrait  of  his  own  countryman,  which 
presumably  he  was  better  able  to  judge  than  those  of  the  others  : 

His  portrait  of  the  old  Tiger  . . was  masterly,  and  it  is  beyond 
anyone’s  power  to  excel  it.^ 

It  was  not  Clemenceau’s  backsliding  that  Keynes  had  to  explain. 
The  French  attituefe  was  well  understood,  and,  it  being  what  it 
was,  the  others  would  clearly  have  a very  difficult  task.  He  had 
to  explain  why  they  were  unequal  to  it : “ But  in  such  a test  of 
character  and  method  as  Pans  provided,  the  Prime  Minister’s 
naturally  good  instincts,  his  industry,  his  inexhaustible  nervous 
vitality  were  not  serviceable.  In  that  furnace  other  qualities 
were  called  for  — a polity  deeply  grounded  in  permanent  prin- 
ciple, tenacity,  fierce  indignation,  honesty,  loyal  leadership.”  3 

A slightly  different  criticism  has  been  advanced.  General 
Smuts  remarked  to  me  ^ that  the  portrait  of  Wilson  wzis  absolutely 
truthful,  but  Keynes  should  not  have  written  it ; after  all  Wilson 
was  our  friend  ”.  This  is  a generous  attitude,  but  it  may  be 
difficult  for  General  Smuts  to  judge  the  matter  aright.  His 
immediate  responsibilities  were  to  lie  elsewhere,  Keynes  felt  a 
personal  obligation,  after  having  partaken  in,  and  by  his  efficient 
services  contributed  to,  the  progress  of  events  at  Paris,  to  do 

I The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,  p 36. 

^ The  Carthaginian  Peace,  by  £tienne  Mantoux,  p.  46. 

3 Essies  tn  Biography,  p 35 

^ Interview  on  8th  June  1948.  See  below,  pp  267-8. 


AST.  36]  ECONOMIC  CONSEQUENCES  *6i 

something  at  once  towards  rectifying  the  situation.  Wilson  had 
spent  his  power  and  could  no  longer  help.  That  he  was  high- 
minded  and  wdl-intcntioned  and  had  striven  according  to  his 
lights  for  a good  settlement  was  now  not  relevant.*  The  public 
scarcely  knew  in  what  respects  the  terms  of  peace  were  ill  con- 
sidered ; what  was  immediately  required  was  elucidation.  The 
sketch  of  Wilson  played  an  essential  part  in  that.  It  would  be  for 
other  hands  to  write  of  all  Wilson’s  good  qualities  and  keep  his 
memory  green. 

But  what  may  be  deemed  a misfortune  befell  Keynes’  work. 
The  consummate  artistry  of  his  portraits  has  preserved  them  in 
our  memories,  and  the  notions  entertained  by  the  subsequent 
generation  about  the  characters  of  the  three  great  men  have  been 
largely  influenced  by  Keynes.  He  would,  no  doubt,  have  sup- 
posed, had  it  occurred  to  him  to  think  upon  the  matter,  that 
others  would  arise  to  do  justice  to  these  three  in  regard  to  all  their 
manifold  good  qualities  and  activities  through  long  and  illustrious 
careers.  The  trouble  in  this  matter  has  been  that  other  pens  of 
comparable  power  have  not  been  found.  Lloyd  George  gives  an 
excellent  account,  also  critical,  of  Wilson,  in  manly,  vigorous 
prose ; Lloyd  George  had  some  gift  of  words ! Yet  place  it 
beside  the  Keynes  portrait,  and  you  will  at  once  feel  it  to  be  the 
work  of  an  amateur.  Where  are  our  great  historians  ? It  is  not 
enough  to  complain  that  Keynes  did  not  do  justice ; let  them 
do  justice  the  iselvcs ! Let  them  show  these  men  with  all  their 
vibrant  powers.  After  all,  they  are  good  subjects.  The  fact  of 
the  matter  is  that  the  survival  of  these  portraits  and  the  complaints 
against  them  are  due  to  Keynes  greatness  as  a writer  and  not  to  any 
fault  in  his  own  intentions.  It  was  the  misfortune  of  these  men  to 
come  across  the  path  of  one  who  had  the  divine  gift  of  words. 

And  he  can  spread  thy  name  o’er  lands  and  seas. 

Whatever  clime  the  sun’s  bnght  circle  warms. 

Wood  may  have  had  ii  .my  amiable  qualities,  but,  unfortunately 
for  his  fame,  he  came  across  Swift’s  path. 

2 

Keynes  attached  great  importance  to  two  points,  which  need 
not  be  discussed  at  length.  One  was  the  fact  that  the  Treaty  was 

* Sre  below,  pp.  293-4. 


262  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

a violation  of  the  Armistice  terms,  and  the  other  its  hypocrisy. 

In  regard  to  the  former,  Keynes  was  particularly  interested 
in  the  inclusion  of  pensions  and  separation  allowances  in  the 
claim  for  reparations  from  the  enemy.  This  was  a glaring  breach. 
And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  French  and  British  delegates  who, 
in  the  early  stages  of  the  discussion,  advanced  claims  for  the  full 
costs  of  the  war?  It  is  clear  that  at  the  time  of  the  Armistice 
they  knew  perfectly  well  that  they  were  signing  away  the  right  to 
demand  those  costs.  It  is  possible  that  Keynes  was  too  ready  to 
assume  similar  defalcations  in  regard  to  matters  with  the  history 
of  which  he  was  less  well  acquainted. 

There  is  some  tendency  to  argue  that  the  Armistice  engagement 
had  no  great  moral  force,  since  the  Allies  were  deceived  as  to  the 
strength  of  the  enemy,  who  might,  after  some  more  fighting,  have 
agreed  to  unconditional  surrender.  Yet  we  must  not  altogether 
neglect  the  extra  fighting,  even  although  it  might  not  have  been 
severe.  Each  extra  Englishman  (or  American  or  Frenchman) 
saved  from  carnage,  each  young  man  with  his  hopes  and  aspira- 
tions, his  parents  or  wife  or  children  who  loved  him,  had  his  own 
unique  value ; it  is  not  right  to  say,  if  these  lives  were  spared, 
that  there  had  been  no  quid  pro  quo  for  the  concessions  to  the  enemy 
contained  in  the  Armistice  terms.  Waiving  this,  there  remains 
the  point  of  international  law  and  morality.  This  was  a moment 
at  which  the  League  of  Nations  was  to  be  founded  and  inter- 
national law  to  be  rebuilt  on  a secure  basis.  Those  rules  which 
govern  individual  behaviour  were  to  apply  to  the  nations  also. 
How  often  does  the  private  citizen,  in  the  conduct  of  his  ordinary 
business  life,  find  that,  after  making  a contract,  he  could  have  got 
much  better  terms,  had  he  known  all  the  circumstances  of  his 
competitor  or  his  client.  It  might  seem  that  life  would  be  easier 
if  on  all  such  occasions  one  could  put  an  agreement  into  the  waste- 
paper  basket.  Not  really  so,  because  one  might  be  the  victim  of 
similar  conduct.  Were  we  not  arraigning  Germany  because  she 
had  treated  the  Belgian  guarantee  as  a scrap  of  paper  ”,  on  the 
ground  that  circumstances  had  changed  ? 

Keynes  felt  very  strongly  on  the  question  of  hypocrisy.  The 
German  delegation  did  not  succeed  in  exposing  in  burning 
and  prophetic  words  the  quality  which  distinguishes  this  trans- 
action from  all  its  historical  predecessors  — its  insincerity.” 
What  he  had  in  mind  was  that  the  Treaty  was  couched  in  the 
language  of  idealism,  justice  and  humane  consideration,  derived 


AKT  36]  ECONOMIC  CONSEQUENCES  ^63 

from  the  great  pronouncements  of  President  Wilson,  while  in  its 
actual  terms  it  was  vindictive  on  large  issues  and  full  of  petty 
spite. 

The  distaste  for  hypociisy  is  not  petuliar  to  Keynes ; I believe 
that  all  the  British  dislike  it.  They  arc  olten  ate  used  by  foreigners 
of  being  a nation  of  hypociitcs,  but  they  deem  this  accusation 
unjust ; Dickens’s  ( astieration  of  Mr.  Pecksniff  was  one  of  his  most 
popular  excursions.  Keynes’  dislike  of  hypocrisy,  liowcver,  ex- 
ceeded the  common  measure;  we  have  seen  this  characteristic 
throughout.  Long  ago  at  the  India  Office  he  was  enraged  that  a 
man  should  be  dismissed  for  an  offence  of  which  he  was  innocent, 
although  there  were  other  good  reasons  for  dismissing  him.^  In 
undcrgiaduate  days  his  dislike  of  Victoiian  humbug  was  a point 
of  common  sentiment  with  Stiachc).  Lven  at  Eton  wc  have  his 
lefcrencc  to  Mafcking  - “ Ihe  p<ipers  call  it  a feivcnt  thanks- 
giving from  the  heait’.  I don’t  think  that  we  aic  quite  such 
hypocrites  hcic.” 

'Jhc  main  mattcis  in  the  hconoma  {(mseqmnas  which  lequire 
discussion  may  be  grouped  under  the  heads  of  thice  propositions : 

[1)  It  WMS  right  and  expedient  that  the  terms  ot  peace  should 
be  magnanimous. 

(2)  The  sums  demanded  111  icparation  were  beyond  the 
1 calms  of  piactic  ability. 

(5)  The  economic  problems  of  laiiope  wene  much  more 
important  tha«'  the  political  questions  of  liontieis. 

The  first  pioposition  was  not  argued  at  length,  but  is  implicit 
throughout  the  liook.  T.lie  second  was  its  main  theme,  but  the 
third  was  also  argued  it  length,  and,  if  it  is  correct,  it  reinforces 
the  importance  of  the  second.  It  is  natural  that  the  ordinary 
man  should  associate  the  book  al)ovc  all  with  the  hist  proposition, 
although  it  was  not  aigucd.  It  is  the  most  controversial,  ^fter 
the  second  and  third  propositions  had  been  widely  accepted, 
doubts  were. still  entcitaincd  about  the  first,  and  there  was,  not 
unnaturally,  a levulsio  . from  it  duiing  the  Hitler  period.  In 
assessing  Keynes’  lasting  influence  on  world  affairs,  it  is  necessary 
to  come  to  grips  with  the  first  proposition,  although  wc  lack  the 
benefit  of  his  explicit  defence  of  it. 

It  was  die  task  of  the  Peace  Confciencc  to  honour  engagements 

and  to  satisfy  justice ; but  not  less  to  re-establish  life  and  to  heal 


» Cf  pp  123-1.. 


264  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

wounds.  These  tasks  were  dictated  as  much  by  prudence  as  by  the 
magnanimity  which  the  wisdom  of  antiquity  approved  in  victors.* 

Yet  the  financial  problems  which  were  about  to  exercise  Europe 
could  not  be  solved  by  greed.  The  possibility  of  their  cure  lay  in 
magnanimity.2 

I cannot  leave  this  subject  as  though  its  just  treatment  wholly 
depended  either  on  our  own  pledges  or  on  economic  facts.  The 
policy  of  reducing  Germany  to  servitude  for  a generation,  of  degrad- 
ing the  lives  of  millions  of  human  beings,  and  of  depriving  a whole 
nation  of  happiness  should  be  abhorrent  and  detestable,  — abhorrent 
and  detestable,  even  if  it  were  possible,  even  if  it  enriched  ourselves, 
even  if  it  did  not  sow  the  decay  of  the  whole  civilised  life  of  Europe. 
Some  preach  it  in  the  name  of  Justice.  In  the  great  events  of  man’s 
history,  in  the  unwinding  of  the  complex  fates  of  nations  Justice  is 
not  so  simple.  And  if  it  were,  nations  are  not  authorised,  by  1 eligion 
or  by  natural  morals,  to  visit  on  the  children  of  their  enemies  the 
misdoings  of  parents  or  of  rulers.^ 

Whatever  may  be  said  about  the  merits  q£  magnanimity  in 
the  particular  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  about  its  relation 
to  the  French  standpoint,  it  must  be  observed  that  Keynes’ 
upbringing  and  environment  made  it  utterly  unthinkable  that 
he  should  take  any  other  view.  He  reminded  English  readers 
of  what  was  bred  in  their  bones,  and  scorned  to  develop  the  case 
further.  High-minded  Cambridge  of  the  great  Victorian  era, 
“ the  Society,”  the  sage  thinkers  of  refined  feeling  who  were 
his  immediate  seniors,  Whitehead,  Trevelyan,  Goldie  Dickinson, 
all  this  world  would  accept  the  precept  of  magnanimity  without 
question.  There  is  no  need  in  this  connection  to  cite  G.  E.  Moore 
and  his  Bloomsbury  disciples,  who  may  have  carried  their  ideal- 
isms to  unpractical  extremes.  Men  of  culture,  in  Cambridge,  in 
London,  throughout  Britain,  whose  thoughts  were  conditioned  by 
the  reading  of  Shakespeare  and  other  great  masters,  men  rooted 
too,  even  when  agnostic,  in  the  ethics  of  Christianity,  thought 
alike  on  this  matter.  This  was  Keynes’  world.  He  was  in  it,  of  it. 
A trip  to  the  Hotel  Majestic  could  not  change  his  nature.  The 
question  is  not  simply.  Was  Keynes  wrong  ? but.  Were  the  presup- 
positions of  British  civilisation,  as  established  during  the  Victorian 
period,  impracticable  in  1919  ? What  was  peculiar  about  Keynes 
was  that  he  kept  his  head  in  the  maelstrom,  and  voiced  the 
The  Economic  Consequhees  of  the  Peace^  p.  23.  ^ Ibid.  p.  135.  ^ Ibid.  pp.  209-1  o 


abt.36]  economic  consequences  26^ 

sentiments  of  the  civilisation  to  which  he  belonged* 

This  way  of  thinking  was  not  confined  to  scholarly  and  intel- 
lectual circles.  Such  thoughts  were  also  in  the  minds  of  Asquith, 
Edward  Grey,  Robert  Cecil  and  other  eminent  statesmen ; 
from  across  the  sea  we  had  the  imperial  contributions  which,  if 
not  specifically  British,  were  derived  from  the  same  cultural  roots 
— those  of  Botha  and  of  Smuts.  And  in  The  Wo)ld  Crisis  (vol.  v) 
by  Mr.  Winston  Churchill,  whose  views  will  be  considered  pres- 
ently, we  find  these  moving  words  which  relate  to  the  evening 
of  the  day  upon  which  the  Armistice  was  signed  : “ My  own  mood 
was  divided  between  anxiety  for  the  future  and  desire  to  help  the 
fallen  foe.  The  conversation  ran  on  the  great  qualities  of  the 
German  people,  on  the  tremendous  fight  they  had  made  against 
three-quarters  of  the  world,  on  the  impossibility  of  rebuilding 
Europe  except  with  their  aid."  * 

We  may  go  further  and  say  that  this  mode  of  thought  was 
not  the  exclusive  property  of  deep  thinkers  or  eminent  statesmen, 
but  was  characteristic  of  the  ordinary  British  citizen.  It  was 
part  of  the  British  way  of  liie.  History  illustrates  it.  Indeed,  old- 
time  British  statesmanship  has  been  rebuked  lor  carrying  the 
leniency  of  peace  treaties  based  upon  hard-won  victories  to  the 
point  of  folly.  That  the  generous  instincts,  of  which  at  the  moment 
Keynes  was  the  lonely  spokesman,  were  really  characteristic  of 
the  British  is  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  within  a short  space  of 
time  his  had  bocome  the  settled  British  view. 

How  came  it  then  th.it  Lloyd  George,  who  was  at  times 
assailed  by  gencious  impulses  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  at 
Paris,  felt  that  he  musi  be  har^h  and  even  vindictive  because  of 
public  opinion  at  home?  That  is  a paradox  which  requires 
explanation. 

Up  to  a point  the  explanation  is  simple.  Human  nature  had 
been  taxed  beyond  endurance.  The  horrors  of  the  war  were 
greater  than  .had  been  known  for  many  generations.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  primitive  c motions  had  been  roused.  At  the  end 
of  the  war  very  decent  people  were  talking  of  the  Germans  in 
language  which  four  years  earlier  would  have  seemed  unthinkable 
in  any  circumstances. 

But  over  and  above  this,  the  general  election  of  1918  involved 
a vulgarisation  of  British  public  life.  That  is  really  the  gravamen 
of  those  who  thought  ill  of  Lloyd  George’s  proceedings.  The 

* P.  20. 


266  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

British  constitution  has  dra'wn  much  of  its  virtue  from  the  party 
system.  Through  the  creeds  of  parties  British  citizens  received 
political  education.  There  were  certain  fixed  principles.  If  new 
situations  arose,  the  humble  citizen  who  belonged  to  a party  had 
some  idea  of  the  way  in  which  those  principles  should  be  applied. 
The  party,  which  as  a social  organism  had  some  maturity,  dis- 
pensed the  individual  member  from  the  task,  which  might  be 
beyond  him,  of  creating  a political  philosophy  for  himself.  The 
churches,  established  and  dissenting,  also  had  their  fixed  princ  iples 
and  made  some  contribution  to  the  stability  and  coherence  of 
political  thinking. 

As  time  went  on,  with  the  enlarged  electorate,  a fluid  social 
and  economic  system  and,  it  must  be  added,  with  the  women  — 
on  whom  paity  doctrine  did  not  have  so  strong  a hold  — receiving 
a vote,  there  were  growing  numbers  of  the  electors  whose  politics 
were  not  based  on  well-defined  doctrines.  It  was  these  who  were 
the  ready  prey  of  the  vulgansers  in  political  journalism  and, 
finally,  in  political  leadership.  They  needed  then  cliches.  Lack- 
ing settled  principles,  such  slogans  as  “Hang  the  Kaiser”,  or 
“ Squeeze  the  lemon  till  the  pips  squeak”  ga\e  them  convenient 
matter  loi  private  oratory.  Such  ideas  had  no  relation  to  any 
fixed  system  of  political  morality.  Ihey  lesponded  to  a transient 
emotion  and  were  good  matter  for  declamation. 

In  this  \ iilgaiisation  Lloyd  Geoigc  played  his  part.  Unluckily 
at  the  time  he  was  himself  deiacinatcd.  At  heart  he  was  still  a 
Liberal,  but  at  the  end  of  1918  the  solid  phalanx  of  oflicial 
Liberalism  was  opposed  to  him.  He  was  not  a Conservative. 
Somehow  he  must  seek  to  win  the  greatest  possible  number  of 
votes.  It  was  an  irresistible  temptation  to  follow  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  vulgarising  journalists  and  make  a specious  appeal  to  the 
momentary  emotion  of  hatred  for  the  Germans.  Thus  he  c ollccted 
his  Parliament  of  what  Keynes’  “ conservative  friend  ” (Mr. 
Baldwin)  called  “ hard-faced  men  who  look  as  if  they  have  done 
very  well  out  of  the  war  ”.  This  Parliament  became  his  master. 

It  should  be  observed  at  this  point  that,  in  spite  of  the  fierce 
anti-Germanism  which  was  prevalent  at  this  time,  there  was  a 
strain  of  idealism  in  the  thinking  of  the  great  majority  of  people. 
This  opportunity  should  be  taken  to  make  the  woild  a better 
place ; peace  must  be  ensured ; international  relations  must  in 
future  be  based  on  justice  and  conciliation.  In  the  minds  of  many 
this  idealism  wSs  canalised  into  support  for  the  new  League  of 


AET  36]  ECONOMIC  CONSEQUENCES  267 

Nations.  This  was  pre-eminently  so  in  the  case  of  Woodrow 
Wilson.  Was  this  the  right  answer?  Men  of  genuine  goodwill 
tended  to  turn  away  from  the  vexed  problem  of  Germany,  which 
aroused  so  much  passion,  and  to  concentrate  their  gaze  upon  the 
League,  which  might  in  the  end  harmonise  conflicting  interests 
and  assuage  national  haticds.  The  tiouble  was,  l^owever,  that 
this  was  a new  experiment,  no  one  could  say  how  it  would 
function ; paper  constitutions  are  notorious  foi  belying  hopes. 
Keynes  was  naturally  a supporter  of  the  I.eague  But  I suspect 
that  when  this  was  piesented  to  him  as  a panacea,  he  mav  have 
mui mured  to  himself  “ anothei  monkey-house  He  stated  his 
views  upon  the  League  . 

The  Assembly  will  mec  t moie  laiely  and  must  become,  as  ansone 
with  an  expcritnce  of  large  Intcr-AIK  Coriftinuts  must  know,  an 
unwieldy  polygkjt  debating  society,  in  whirh  the  greatest  resolution 
and  the  best  management  may  fail  altogethei  to  bung  issues  to  a 
head  against  an  opposition  in  f ivoui  of  the  status  quo  ^ 

Not  that  he  joined  the  cynics. 

While  It  would  be  wrong  and  foolish  to  conceal  from  oui- 
sclves  in  the  mteusts  of  “ ideiihsm  ” the  real  diflicultics  of  the 
position  in  the  special  mattci  of  levising  treaties,  that  is  no  icason 
for  any  of  us  to  deciy  the  League,  whi(  h the  w isdom  of  the  world  may 
yet  tiansform  into  a powerful  iiiotrument  of  peace  ^ 

I suggest  that  Keynes’  instinct  was  sound  in  not  being  led 
away  bv  eon«  mplation  of  the  glorious  possibilities  of  this  new 
paper  constitution  from  considering  the  immediate  and  actual 
human  problem  of  the  treatment  of  a fallen  foe.  One  may  dream 
di  earns  foi  the  future.  I hat  doc  s not  exempt  one  from  the  painful 
task  of  doing  what  is  right  here  and  now  to  help  one’s  neighboui 
or  one’s  enemy  This  I.eague-worship  involved  a kind  of  escap- 
ism, of  which  Keynes  was  temperamentally  incapable 

The  actual  problem  to  be  solved,  with  or  without  the  help  of 
the  League,  and  the  « i^ner  the  better,  was  the  reintegration  of 
Germany  into  the  comuy  of  Europe.  I had  the  privilege  of  an 
interview  with  General  Smuts  on  the  subject  of  Keynes  on  8th 
June  1948,  and  he  stressed  that  this  thought  was  the  basis  of  their 
sympathetic  co-operation  at  Paris  in  1919.  He  had  become  wtII 
acquainted  with  Keynes  dunng  the  war  as  the  man  to  whom  he 
went  when  difficulties  arose  in  connection  with  the  South  African 
currency  and  who  always  seemed  to  have  a ready  solution.  I 

* Cf  p supra  The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peaa,  pp  213-4 


ss68  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1019 

listened  to  this  revered  philosopher  statesman  as  he  talked  volubly 
and  with  full  memory  of  the  Peace  Conference,  He  had  found 
himself  in  agreement  with  Keynes  and  had  urged  him  to  write 
the  book.  He,  Smuts,  had  at  first  refused  to  sign  the  Treaty, 
but  had  yielded  to  Lloyd  George’s  strong  pressure,  with  a reser- 
vation that  he  must  be  allowed  to  publish  a criticism.  He  added 
that  it  had  often  been  a consolation  to  •him,  as  he  discharged  his 
responsibilities  in  a far-distant  land,  to  think  that  Keynes  was  here 
in  London  exerting  his  influence  at  the  centre  of  affairs.  (Alas, 
for  many  years  Keynes  had  less  influence  on  the  official  world  than 
Smuts  may  have  supposed.)  At  one  point  his  expression  became 
troubled.  He  himself  brought  the  question  of  pensions  and  allow- 
ances into  the  discussion  and  gave  the  version  of  his  intention 
which  I have  quoted.^  “ I got  into  hot  water  about  that.”  We 
have  seen  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  Four  that  Wilson 
shared  Smuts’s  interpretation,  and,  since  it  was  to  Wilson  that  the 
memorandum  was  primarily  addressed,  this  is  a strong  point  in 
favour  of  Smuts. 

“ The  paramount  task  ”,  he  proceeded  “ wa^  to  bring  Germany 
back  into  the  fold.  It  was  impossible  to  cut  her  out.  One  should 
think  of  it  in  physical  terms.  Here  was  a great  mass  of  people 
in  the  centre  of  Europe,  with  outstanding  qualities  of  industry, 
scientific  ability  and  discipline.  One  could  not  just  ignore  them 
or  ostracise  them.  Some  means  must  be  found  for  assimilating 
them.  In  igiq  the  central  problem  was  the  reintegration  of 
Germany,  and  ” - - his  eyes  flashed  fire  — “ that  is  the  problem 
to-day.  People  should  go  back  to  Keynes.” 

It  is  not  enough  for  the  purpose  in  hand  to  establish  that 
Keynes  really  did  represent  his  countrymen  in  his  lone  battle  for 
magnanimous  dealing.  We  have  to  ask  the  more  exacting  ques- 
tion whether  this  British  instinct  of  generosity  was  an  appropriate 
one  in  the  world  of  1919.  In  sharp  contrast  to  the  view  I have 
outlined  was  Clemenccau’s  view  as  described  by  Keynes. 

In  the  first  place,  he  was  a foremost  believer  in  the  view  of  German 
psychology  that  the  German  understands  and  can  understand  no- 
thing but  intimidation,  that  he  is  without  generosity  or  remorse  in 
negotiation,  that  there  is  no  advantage  he  will  not  take  of  you,  and 
no  extent  to  which  he  will  not  demean  himself  for  profit,  that  he 
is  without  honour,  piide,  or  meicy.  Therefore  you  must  never 
negotiate  with  a Gei  man  or  conciliate  him ; you  must  dictate  to 

r 

* Scr  pp  244-5  abo\e 


abt.36]  economic  consequences  !»&, 

him.  On  no  other  terms  will  he  respect  you,  or  will  you  prevent  him 
from  cheating  you.  But  it  is  doubtful  how  far  he  thought  these 
characteristics  peculiar  to  Germany,  or  whether  his  candid  view  of 
some  other  nations  was  fundamentally  different.* 

Was  that  the  view  of  German  relations  it  would  be  wise  and 
prudent  to  adopt  in  the  period  to  come  ? This  must  be  looked  at. 

The  broad  criticism  of  Keynes’  view  may  be  put  as  follows : 
After  five  years  of  tribulation,  Germany  obtained  lenient  terms 
in  the  Dawes  Plan  and  promotion  to  an  equal  status  in  the  Locarno 
Treaty.  In  the  final  upshot  she  obtained  relief  beyond  the  wildest 
dreams  of  Keynes,  for,  on  her  external  account,  loans  from  America 
exceeded  her  disbursements  in  reparations,  so  that  she  was  a net 
receiver  of  money  until  the  period  of  the  world  slump,  when  her 
obligations  were  suspended.  With  these  adwinlagcs  she  enjoyed 
a period  of  comparative  and  not  unsubstantial  prosperity  in  the 
years  from  1925  to  1929,  so  that  Keynes’  experiment  was  in  the 
end  tried.  And  what  was  the  result  of  it  ? Hitler. 

During  the  Nazi  period  there  was  a reaction  against  Keynes 
which  embodied  much  muddled  thinking.  Mr.  Winston  Churchill 
has,  correctly  in  my  judgment,  gained  wide  acceptance  for  the 
proposition  that  the  Second  World  War  was  an  “unnecessary” 
one.  For  many  years  after  the  first  war  we  were  in  control  of  the 
situation  and  yet  we  allowed  Germany  to  rebuild  her  armaments, 
so  that  she  became  far  stronger  than  France,  and  perhaps  stronger 
than  France  ard  Biitain  together.  Was  not  this  the  utmost  folly  ? 
Well  then,  had  we  not  been  too  lenient  to  Germany  ? And  was 
not  this  due  in  part  to  the  influence  of  Keynes  and  his  pleading 
in  The  Economic  Conseqwnres  of  the  Pecue  ? 

Argument  on  these  lines  was  often  superficial.  I recall  that 
a Gallup  Poll  (or  some  similar  enquiry)  dealt  with  this  problem 
by  questions  as  follows  : Was  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  too  lenient, 
or  about  right,  or  too  severe  ? This  is  thinking  at  a very  crude 
level.  Severe  in  regard  to  what?  There  was  another  way  of 
putting  the  matter,  whicn  has  some  truth,  and  yet  does  not  really 
meet  the  case,  namely,  that  the  Treaty  fell  between  two  stools. 
This  implies  that  all  would  have  been  well  had  it  been  either 
more  severe  or  more  lenient,  and  failed  because  it  was  middling 
in  this  regard.  Such  a formulation  does  not  suffice  either.  Surely 
the  right  answer  was  that  it  was  necessary  to  be  severe  in  those 
matters  in  which  severity  is  appropriate,  and  lenient  in  those 

* The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,  p.  29. 


270  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  tWQ 

matters  in  which  leniency  is  appropriate.  Severity  was  appropriate 
as  regards  allowing  Germany  to  rebuild  her  armaments  and  renew 
aggression ; leniency  was  appropriate  in  regard  to  allowing  her, 
subject  to  suitable  penalties,  to  resume  a normal  life  of  moderate 
prosperity,  in  conditions  in  which  self-interest  would  promote 
progress,  and  to  bringing  her  back  into  the  comity  of  nations  in 
the  spirit  of  letting  bygones  be  bygones. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  French  had  a case  which  was 
intrinsically  very  strong.  Was  their  just  claim  for  security 
sufficiently  met  by  the  British  and  Americans?  There  was  the 
League  of  Nations,  an  unknown  quantity  ; there  was  the  Anglo- 
American  guarantee,  which  failed.  (It  must  be  remembered 
that  Keynes’  book  was  written  before  this  failure  was  known.) 
Would  these  two  have  sufficed  ? It  seems  doubtful.  Ought  not 
the  French  plea  to  have  been  handled  more  sympathetically  by 
the  British  and  Americans  ? Ought  not  some  further  method  of 
guarantee  to  have  been  hammered  out  ? 

Keynes  is,  I think,  open  to  the  criticism  that  he  did  not 
do  justice  to  the  problem  of  French  security.  To  plead  that  this 
was  outside  his  purview,  since  he  was  dealing  with  economics,  is 
not  perhaps  sufficient,  since  his  book  was  inevitably  taken  to  have 
a wider  application,  with  its  plea  for  generosity  as  a general  prin- 
ciple. We  may  admit  that  his  work  would  have  been  strength- 
ened if  he  had  shown  more  recognition  of  the  genuine  character 
of  the  French  fears  and  claims.  However,  where  he  erred,  he 
did  not  err  alone.  It  was  not  on  this  point  that  he  distinguished 
himself  from  Lloyd  George  and  those  who  were  responsible  on 
the  British  side  for  the  Treaty.  It  might  be  held  against  Britain 
generally  that  ^he  did  not  take  the  French  case  seriously  enough. 
Where  Keynes  very  distinctly  joined  issue  was  on  the  idea  that 
a reparations  plan  should  itself  be  part  of  the  security  programme. 
This  was  confusing  two  issues.  This  was  applying  severity  where 
leniency  was  appropriate.  Keynes  never  suggested  that  he  would 
disapprove  of  military  measures  to  prevent  German  rearmament. 
What  he  did  undoubtedly  hold  was  that  it  was  a mistaken  and 
hopeless  and  wrong  policy  to  seek  security  against  some  future 
German  aggression  by  crushing  Germany  economically.  This 
was  the  French  aim.  Now  on  this  point,  which  was  Keynes’ 
central  point,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  matter  may  be  judged  by 
reference  to  what  has  happened  since,  and  that  the  judgment 
* goes  in  favour  of’  Keyfies. 


AST.  36]  ECONOMIC  CONSEQUENCES  571 

What  was  the  object  of  these  onerous  financial  obligations  ? 
The  matter  may  be  put  quite  simply  in  terms  of  two  alternatives. 
Was  it  assumed  that  Germany  would  meet  the  obligations  ? Or 
was  it  assumed  that  she  w ould  not  ? Let  us  suppose  that  Germany, 
by  a heroic  effort  of  self-control,  by  hard  work  and  living  of  an 
austerity  unknown  in  any  industrial  society,  and  in  a spirit  of 
meek  and  mild  compliance  and  honourable  fulfilment  of  a treaty 
signed,  achieved  an  export  surplus  of  the  required  amount  over 
the  period  in  question.  We  have  a picture  of  Germany  building 
up  a vast  export  industry,  her  workers  producing  and  yet  not 
consuming,  with  a self-discipline  that  would  ha^'e  been  envied 
by  Sparta,  and,  in  this  regime  of  fabulous  austerity,  her  industrial 
strength  being  raised  to  a point  exceeding  anything  that  was 
achieved  in  Hitler’s  day.  Meanwhile  Britain  and  France  would 
be  living  the  life  of  lotus  eaters,  wdth  taxation  low,  hours  of 
work  light,  their  markets  gone,  enjoying  the  well-earned  fruits  of 
victory  for  a period  of  thirty  or  forty  years.  Was  it  not  obvious 
that,  if  this  were  actually  to  hajipen,  at  the  end  of  the  period 
France  and  Britain  would  be  totally  at  the  mercy  of  Germany? 
This  clearly  was  not  the  w^ay  to  provide  the  French  with  security. 

^Vhat  of  the  other  alternative?  German  default,  followed  by 
sanctions.  Was  this  a satisfactory  method  of  achieving  security 
for  France?  Did  the  French  really  desire  to  see  a long  series  of 
German  defaults,  so  that  they  might  have  the  justification  for 
continuous  inlerlerenrc,  occupying  towns  and  distric  ts,  boycotting, 
interfering  through  the  Reparations  Commission  and  so  foith  ? 
Thus  would  Germany  \jk  continually  harassed  and  kept  low. 
This  is  what  actually  happened  for  five  years;  but  surely  it 
should  have  bct'u  perfectly  clear  that  such  a regime  would  be 
unstable.  One  could  not  go  on  indefinitely  with  this  restless 
intervention.  This  instability  wf^s  bound  to  be  terminated  in 
one  way  01  the  other.  Either  the  French  would  have  to  make  up 
their  minds  to  occupy  the  N.nole  of  Germany,  or  the  clauses  of  the 
Treaty  would  have  to  be  scrapped  and  a liberal  solution  put  in 
their  place.  If  the  French  had  the  former  alternative  in  mind, 
this  was  clearly  foolish.  For  the  right  time  to  have  a plenary' 
occupation  of  Germany,  if  ever,  was  in  1919.  It  was  quite  unreal- 
istic to  suppose  that  the  French,  who  shrank  from  such  a strenuous 
adventure  then,  would  have  the  energy  to  embark  upon  it  five 
or  ten  years  later.  Thus  the  whole  thing  would  necessarily  end 
in  a liberal  solution.  And  so  it  turned  out.  But  the  five  interven- 


272  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

ing  years  were  a period  of  tribulation  for  Germany,  which  had  its 
effects. 

During  this  period  sanctions  were  applied  against  Germany 
for  her  failure  to  make  payment.  These  culminated  in  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  Ruhr,  and  in  sum  proved  a fiasco.  The  French  were 
at  length  persuaded  to  change  their  policy  and  agreed  to  the 
Dawes  Plan,  which  represented  a liberal  solution.  But  all  these 
abortive  attempts  to  enforce  the  financial  clauses  brought  a 
certain  discredit  upon  the  whole  policy  of  coercive  intervention. 
The  life  passed  out  of  this  mode  of  procedure,  and  it  became 
widely  regarded  as  futile.  Yet  the  time  was  to  come  when  such 
intervention  would  be  by  no  means  futile.  It  was  not  on  the 
reparations  clauses  but  on  the  disarmament  clauses  that  France 
should  have  relied  principally  for  hei  own  defence.  Therefore, 
when  a fiercely  militarist  party  achieved  supremacy  in  a resurgent 
Germany  and  rearmament  began,  it  was  highly  desiiablc  that 
the  Treaty  should  be  enforced,  by  militaiy  measures  if  nc'cessary. 
This  is  the  hub  of  Mr.  Chuichiirs  contention.  But  military 
measures  had  been  discredited  by  their  prcni^ture  use  for  an 
irrelevant  purpose.  The  Ruhr  fiasco  in  1923  was  an  important 
contributory  cause  of  the  lack  of  support  lor  the  proposal  to 
prevent  by  force  of  arms  the  German  remilitarisation  of  the 
Rhineland  in  1936.  How  much  better  it  would  have  been  to 
have  had  a Treaty  in  which  only  the  really  vital  security  clauses, 
namely  the  disarmament  clauses,  would  require  military  inter- 
vention, and  to  have  conserved  one’s  energies  and  will-power  for 
that  supreme  purpose. 

Meanwhile  the  question  may  be  raised  whether  the  severe 
economic  terms  did  in  the  event  matter  so  much,  since  all  w’as 
changed  five  years  later.  To  that  extent  it  might  be  argued  that 
Lloyd  George’s  plea  holds,  namely  that,  when  passions  had  cooled, 
common  sense  would  find  a better  solution.  This  is  entirely  to 
neglect  the  importance  of  the  intervening  five  years.  For  it  was 
in  that  period,  during  which  attempts  were  still  being  made  to 
enforce  the  Peace  Treaty  reparations,  that  the  social  structure 
of  Germany  was  undermined.  Inflation  persisted  for  five  years, 
reducing  the  value  of  the  mark  to  nothing.  This  cannot  be  done 
without  gross  injury  to  society.  Keynes  has  a grave  warning, 
of  prophetic  character,  about  the  evils  of  inflation.  Since  in 
later  days  he  was  to  be  regarded  as  something  of  an  inflationist  — 
whether  truly  so  depends  on  the  definition  of  that  term  — it  is 


aet.36]  economic  consequences  273 

interesting  to  observe  that  his  picture  of  the  evils  of  inflation  is  as 
vivid  as  can  be  found  anywhere : 

Lenin  is  said  to  have  declared  that  the  best  way  to  destroy  the 
Capitalist  System  was  to  debauch  the  currency.  By  a continuing 
process  of  inflation,  governments  can  confiscate,  secretly  and  un- 
observed, an  important  part  of  the  wealth  of  their  citizens.  By  this 
method  they  not  only  confiscate,  but  they  confiscate  arbitiarily,  . . . 

Lenin  was  certainly  right.  There  is  no  subtler,  no  surer  means  of 
overturning  the  existing  basis  of  society  than  to  debauch  the  currency. 
The  process  engages  all  the  hidden  forces  of  economic  law  on  the 
side  of  destruction,  and  does  it  in  a manner  which  not  one  man  in  a 
million  is  able  to  diagnose. 

...  By  combining  a popular  hatred  of  the  c lass  of  entrepreneurs 
with  the  blow  already  given  to  social  security  by  the  violent  and 
arbitrary  disturbance  of  contract  and  of  the  eslablislicd  equilibrium 
of  wealth  which  is  the  inevitable  result  of  inflation,  these  govern- 
ments are  fast  rendering  impossible  a continuance  of  the  social  and 
economic  order  of  the  nineteenth  century.  But  they  have  no  plan  for 
replacing  it.* 

These  words  were  written  at  a time  when  the  German  mark  was 
worth  less  than  2d.  on  the  exchanges  It  was  to  proceed 
through  a long-drawn-out  agony  to  zero.  A vast  disturbance  in 
the  German  social  order  did  in  fact  occur,  and  many  stable 
elements  belonging  to  the  old  regime  disappeared.  Furthermore, 
these  events  completely  discredited  the  Weimar  Republic.  It 
may  indeed  be  the  case  that  the  lamp  of  democracy  always  burns 
low  in  Germany.  Still,  it  is  incumbent  on  one  to  make  the 
best  use  of  what  is  theic.  If  the  Weimar  Government  was  not 
nursed  to  strength,  what  should  we  have  ? It  may  well  be  that,  if 
the  German  economy  had  not  been  overset  in  the  period  1919-24, 
if  more  of  the  older  order  had  been  retained,  if  the  Weimar 
Government  had  been  allowed  a successful  first  act,  subject  to 
the  observance  of  the  clauses  ol  a more  moderate  treaty,  then 
Germany  would  have  stood  up  to  the  slump,  like  other  nations, 
without  a revolution.  This  is  the  gravamen.  The  reparations 
clauses  doomed  the  youthful  democratic  government.  It  might 
not  have  succeeded  in  any  case.  But  there  was  a hope,  the  only 
hope  really,  and  it  was  wicked  to  destroy  it  — all  to  no  purpose. 

Thus  I see  no  inherent  conflict  between  the  Keynes  judgment 
on  the  reparations  clauses  of  the  Treaty  and  the  view  associated 

* T}w  Etomrti'C  Comequenrts  of  the  Peate,  pp.  220-23. 


T 


274  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

with  Mr.  Churchill,  that  firmness  on  the  part  of  the  Allies  could 
have  prevented  the  second  war.  It  is  not  of  the  laxity  of  the  Treaty 
that  Mr.  Churchill  has  complained,  but  of  the  lassitude  and  feckless- 
ness ten  years  later.  It  may  be  noticed  that  Mr.  Churchill  has 
expressed  agreement  with  Keynes’  view  of  the  economic  clauses 
both  in  The  World  Crisis  and  in  The  Second  World  War.  In  the 
former  work*  (1929)  he  made  a reservation  as  regards  Keynes 
which  we  shall  presently  consider, 

. . . He  showed  in  successive  chapters  of  unanswerable  good 
sense  the  monstrous  c haracter  of  the  financial  and  economic  clauses. 
On  all  these  matters  his  opinion  is  good.  Carried  away,  however,  by 
his  natural  indignation  at  the  economic  terms  which  were  to  be 
solemnly  enacted,  lie  wrapped  the  whole  structure  of  the  Peace 
Treaties  in  one  common  condemnation.  His  qualifications  to  speak 
on  the  economic  aspects  were  indisputable ; but  on  the  other  and 
vastly  more  important  side  of  the  problem  he  could  judge  no  better 
than  many  others. 

It  must  in  all  fairness  be  admitted  that  the  experiment  of  a 
more  generous  treaty  might  have  failed,  that  the  \\ieimar  Republic 
might  have  proved  a wolf  in  sheep’s  clothing.  This  merely 
points  back  to  the  question  of  military  security.  The  economic 
clauses  could  give  no  security,  whether  they  were  enforced  or  not 
enforced.  The  French  might  well  feel,  however,  that  even  with 
the  new-born  League  and  with  the  Anglo-American  guarantee 
of  their  frontier,  they  could  not  feel  safe.  The  French  had  waived 
demands,  put  forward  strongly  by  Marshal  Foch,  for  confining 
the  German  Reich  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Rhine.  They  had  done 
so  with  trepidation.  When  the  Americans  and  British  proceeded 
to  default  on  the  guarantee,  they  felt  completely  betrayed.  It 
would  seem  that  the  British  should  have  had  the  strongest  sym- 
pathy for  the  French,  alongside  whom  they  had  fought,  in  this 
dilemma.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  following  period  their  belated 
impulses  of  generosity  were  gaining  the  upper  hand,  and,  so  far 
from  being  prompted  by  conscience  to  make  some  amends  to  the 
French,  which  were  indeed  due,  they  showed  only  mounting 
irritation.  Thus  these  stupid  reparations  clauses  were  clouding 
the  issue  at  a vital  period.  The  British  deplored,  and  indeed  were 
justified  in  deploring,  the  truculent  attitude  of  the  French  in 
insisting  on  the  letter  of  a financial  settlement,  which  the  British 
were  coming  to  believe,  partly  in  consequence  of  Keynes’  advo- 

> Vol.  V,  p.  155. 


aet.36]  economic  consequences  275 

cacy,  to  be  impossible  of  fulfilment.  Yet  this  was  no  excuse  for 
lack  of  sympathy  for  the  new  predicament  of  the  French  on  the 
military  side.  The  French  were  impelled  to  act  on  the  reparations 
issue  in  isolation ; they  failed ; they  were  humiliated ; they  felt 
alone  and  without  bearings.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  dis- 
integration of  French  morale  and  French  policy,  which  had  such 
disastrous  effects  in  the  ’thirties.  Keynes’  argument  was  not  con- 
cerned with  all  this.  The  point  remains  that,  since  his  book  was 
not  only  ane  conomic  argument  but  also  an  appeal  to  magnani- 
mous feelings,  and  thus  had  an  influence  on  a wider  field  of  policy, 
his  failure  to  apply  his  mind  to  the  problem  of  French  security  was 
a fault.  This  French  problem  was  really  one  and  the  same  as  ihe 
problem  of  world  peace ; for,  if  France  was  attacked  again,  a 
general  war  would  inevitably  en^ue. 

3 

Keynes  insisted  that  the  peace  settlement  was  infected  with 
unreality  because  the  reparations  clauses  were  impracticable.  In 
a posthumous  analysis  of  this  proposition  it  may  be  expedient  to 
define  the  word  impracticable  more  closely  than  seemed  necessary 
in  the  heat  of  advocacy.  One  may  envisage  a nation  striving 
earnestly  to  make  a payment,  with  all  its  citizens  co-operating 
with  the  utmost  goodwill,  working  hard  and  living  austerely, 
and  all  the  oth^'*'  nations  making  it  as  easy  as  possible  for  payments 
to  be  received.  Alternatively,  we  may  wish  to  consider  what  a 
reluctant,  recalcitrant  and  aggrieved  nation  can  be  made  to  do 
under  the  threat  of  san(  dons  to  be  imposed  at  a distance  or  on  its 
frontiers.  ( )r  we  may  consider  what  a nation  would  do  under  the 
lash  of  an  occupying  power.  The  third  of  these  possibilities  was 
ruled  out  from  the  beginning,  and  the  first  is  not  acceptable  to 
common  sense. 

In  a recently  published  book,  entitled  The  Carthaginian  Peace^ 
or  The  Economic  Consequ^mies  of  Mr.  Keynes  (1946),  M.  Etienne 
Mantoux  has  argued  that  Keynes’  objections  to  the  reparations 
clauses  were  grossly  exaggerated  and  that  payment  of  the  full 
amount  was  a reasonable  request  to  make.  The  author  was  the 
son  of  M.  Paul  Mantoux,  official  interpreter  at  the  Paris  Peace 
Conference  and  an  economic  historian  of  distinction.  He  was 
himself  a young  man  of  great  promise,  beloved  by  many;  he  was 
killed  on  active  servicre  on  29th  April  1945.  This  book,  written 


376  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

from  the  French  standpoint,  although  fierce  enough  in  its  indict* 
ment  of  Keynes,  is  not  extremist.  It  was  composed  when  France 
was  under  the  shadow  of  German  occupation;  such  a time 
would  not  be  a good  one  for  perceiving  the  virtues  of  Keynes’ 
plea  for  magnanimity.  There  are  many  moving  passages  in  the 
book  and  much  learning;  the  author’s  attempt  was  eminently 
patriotic  and  honourable  and  does  him  credit;  his  work  has  a 
power  and  range  which  suggest  great  promise. 

Much  of  the  book  was  concerned  with  those  general  questions 
of  policy  which  have  been  discussed  in  the  previous  section. 
What  has  particularly  attracted  attention  is  that  it  set  out  to 
make  a frontal  attack  on  Keynes,  on  the  ground  on  which  he 
was  supposed  to  be  impregnable,  namely,  the  feasibility  of  the 
reparations  proposals.  It  is  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  how 
small  a portion  of  the  book  is  devoted  to  argument  on  this  par- 
ticular topic.  The  challenge  being  so  conspicuously  daring,  one 
would  have  supposed  that  the  author  would  have  been  at  special 
pains  to  substantiate  it.  Yet,  in  fact,  there  are  only  nine  pages 
out  of  203  devoted  to  the  central  part  of  the  paoblem,  namely, 
what  is  known  as  the  “ transfer  problem  Another  six  pages 
arc  devoted  to  Germany’s  power  to  increase  her  income  internally 
and  six  to  the  quesli9n  whether  other  countries  would  gain  or 
suffer  by  receiving  German  goods.  The  central  question  remains 
whether  it  was  possible  for  Germany  to  pay  out,  by  an  excess  of 
exports  over  imports,  the  sums  demanded  by  the  Allies.  It  must 
be  said  that  the  arguments  put  forward  in  this  narrow  compass 
of  nine  pages  arc  feeble  in  the  extreme.  We  are  told  that  the 
transfer  problem  has  been  exaggerated,  and  M.  Mantoux  cites 
as  a contrary  instance  the  enormous  sums  transferred  by  Great 
Britain  to  her  Allies  and  by  the  United  States  during  the  First 
World  War.  This  is  clearly  quite  beside  the  point.  In  this 
case  demand  was  ready-made.  Here  were  allies  requiring  muni- 
tions, and  the  materials  to  make  them,  in  amounts  altogether 
beyond  the  ordinary.  If  the  United  States  was  able  to  supply 
those  demands,  it  was  naturally  easy  for  her  to  have  an  excess  of 
exports  over  imports  of  a large  amount.  It  is  surprising  that  M. 
Mantoux  could  advance  such  an  argument  seriously.  His  next 
instance  is  worse.  He  cites  the  enormous  increase  of  production 
in  Germany  secured  by  the  efforts  of  Adolf  Hitler.  Then, 
remembering  that  he  is  arguing  in  a section  headed  “ The  Transfer 
Problem  ”,  he  adds : “ It  will,  I presume,  be  argued  that  the  case 


«t,36]  economic  consequences  277 

is  irrelevant,  and  that  the  fifteen  milliard  marks  spent  annually 
by  Germany  on  rearmament  until  1939  are  no  measure  of  her 
capacity  to  pay,  because  the  proceeds  did  not  have  to  be  trans^ 
fened  abroad"^  Precisely ! He  then  proceeds  to  a bitter,  macabre 
joke.  “ How  interesting  it  would  be  to  ask  the  citizens  of  Warsaw, 
of  Rotterdam,  of  Belgrade,  of  London  and  Goventrv  . . . what 
they  think  of  this  particular  piece  of  argument ! All  have  now 
tasted  in  a marked  degree  the  quality  of  German  products."*’ 
Then  in  what  follows,  it  appears  that  this  is  not  intended  as  a 
joke  after  all,  on  the  ground  that  the  production  of  these  deadly 
weapons  involved  the  same  problem  as  an  increase  in  exports, 
namely  a big  internal  shift  in  German  industry.  But  one  may  stiift 
about  one’s  industry  without  solving  the  transfer  problem,  since 
that  requires  finding  foreign  buyers  for  the  new  goods.  The,  next 
instance  is  the  transfer  from  the  occupied  territories  to  the  German 
account  during  the  Second  World  War.  Here  again  two  factors 
were  present  which  do  not  apply  to  the  situation  that  Keynes 
discussed,  namely  (i)  an  army  of  occupation  to  enforce  payments, 
and  (2)  an  abnormal  demand  for  goods  arising  from  Germany’s 
war  efforts.  So  ends  this  section ! It  is  embroidered  with  a few 
cursory  theoretical  observations.  Such  being  the  contents  of  the 
part  of  M.  Mantoux’s  work  that  directly  challenges  Keynes’  main 
thesis,  his  claim  cannot  be  taken  seriously. 

There  is  an  earlier  section,  not  germane  to  the  central  issue, 
in  which  he  ha^  some  statistical  criticisms  that  are  more  successful. 
He  seems  to  convict  Keynes  of  carelessness  in  failing  to  allow  fully 
for  the  depreciation  of  the  franc  when  holding  up  certain  French 
estimates  of  damage  to  ridicule.*  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  M. 
Mantoux  himself  makes  mistakes  in  the  opposite  sense,*  and  the 

* pp.  102-11/8. 

* Later  in  this  passai^e  Maiitonx  compares  the  Freni  h t laim  bcfoic  the  Repara^  Ions 

Commission  for  127  milliard  francs,  condemned  by  Keynes  as  a fantastic  exaggeration, 
with  the  cost  subsequently  established  in  1932  as  103  milliard  francs.  As  the  index 
number  of  French  wholesale  oHccs  stood  at  333  (base  1904-13'!  when  the  Com- 
mission reported,  and  then  ros<  uadily  to  784  between  1921  and  1926,  which  was 
presumably  the  most  active  period  of  reconstruction,  and  remained  thereafter  above 
600  until  the  slump  and  above  400  until  the  end  of  1931,  the  fact  that  the  actual  cost 
of  reconstruction  in  this  period  of  inflated  prices  was  only  103  milliards  shows  that  the 
estimate  of  127  milliards  in  1921  was  indeed  grossly  exaggerated.  Yet  by  a remark- 
able piece  of  jugglery,  combining  a coefficient  for  depreciation  m terms  of  gold  and 
one  for  that  in  terms  of  goods  in  an  illegitimate  way,  Mantoux  concludes  that  the 
actual  cost  of  103  milliards  was  “ almost  exactly  **  equad  to  the  estimate  of  1 27  milliards 
made  when  prices  were  so  much  lower ! In  this  passage  Mantoux  shows  a high  degree 
of  irresponsibility.  • 

Mr.  J.  R.  Sargent  has  maUe  a careful  statistical  calculation,  by  applying  successive 


278  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

upshot  appears  to  be  that,  while  the  French  estimates  did  not 
overstate  the  damage  as  grossly  as  Keynes  claims,  they  were  by 
no  means  all  as  reasonable  as  M.  Mantoux  claims. 

In  another  passage  M.  Mantoux  makes  great  play  with  Keynes’ 
predictions.^  Keynes  has  rightly  gained  a reputation  for  a rather 
remarkable  power  of  prediction.  One  would  hardly  expect  hints 
thrown  out  in  a polemic  written  in  a period  of  confusion  and  un- 
certainty all  to  be  correct.  But  the  main  reason  why  M.  Mantoux 
is  able  to  make  quite  a goodly  collection  of  apparent  mistakes  is 
that  he  sometimes  relates  Keynes’  forecasts  of  what  would  happen, 
should  an  attempt  be  made  to  carry  out  the  reparation  clauses, 
to  conditions  in  Germany  after  the  attempt  had  been  abandoned. 

Since  this  book  was  written,  an  event  has  occurred  which 
would  have  enabled  M.  Mantoux  to  replace  his  absurd  illustra- 
tions about  transfer  by  a good  one.  During  the  Second  World 
War,  Britain  sold  foreign  investments  and  incurred  heavy  war 
debts,  while  other  factors  also  began  to  operate  against  her  trade 
balance,  so  that  experts  estimated  that  after  the  war  she  would 
have  to  increase  her  exports  by  50  per  cent ; this  estimate  was 
soon  revised  to  75  per  cent.  By  the  end  of  1948  she  had  achieved 
the  50  per  cent  increase.  If  Germany  had  made  a proportionate 
achievement  she  woujd  have  exceeded  Keynes’  estimate  of  her 
capacity.  Yet,  in  the  Second  World  War,  Britain  underwent 
economic  strain  and  loss  which  far  exceeded  those  which  Germany 
suffered  in  the  First  World  War.  Germany  escaped  in  the  end 
without  payment,  but  Britain,  who  fought  alone  against  tyranny 
in  her  finest  hour,  is  having  to  bear  a reparations  burden  much 
greater  than  Keynes’  estimate  for  Germany,  not  for  thirty  or  forty 
years,  but  in  perpetuity.  This  burden  that  Britain  has  to  carry 
corresponds  more  nearly  to  an  indemnity  than  to  reparations  ; for 
it  essentially  consists  in  the  main  of  a retrospective  payment  for 
part  of  the  cost  of  the  war  to  other  United  Nations. 

While  Britain  may  claim  credit  for  the  uncomplaining  courage 
with  which  she  has  faced  this  burden  and  for  what  she  has  already 

price  index  numbers  and  weights,  of  the  cost  of  French  reparations,  as  established  in 
*932,  in  terms  of  pre-war  gold  francs,  and  arrived  at  the  figure  of  22*2  milliard.  He 
checked  this  by  taking  the  figure  of  1713  milliards  of  francs  quoted  in  1932  **  as 
representing  the  capital  value  with  regard  to  the  gold  value  of  the  franc  at  the  vatious 
dates  of  payment  ” (Mantoux,  p.  to6)  and  reached  the  figure  of  23*5  milliard  pre-war 
gold  francs,  which  sufficiently  confirms  his  other  figure.  The  French  claim  (1921), 
allowing  for  the  prices  ruling  when  it  was  made,  amounted  to  36*8  milliards  pre-war 
gold  francs. 

’ Pp.  160-63. 


aet.36]  economic  consequences  279 

achieved,  the  illustration  does  not  prove  that  Keynes  was  too 
lenient,  for  there  are  three  important  respects  in  which  the  situa- 
tion differs.  In  the  first  place,  Britain  has  had  the  advantage  of 
assistance  on  a large  scale  towards  recovery.  There  were  the 
American  and  Canadian  loans,  amounting  to  £12^0  million,  and 
there  has  been  “ Marshall  Aid  The  loans  were  similar  to  the 
assistance  which  Keynes  proposed  at  the  eleventh  hour  in  order 
to  retrieve  the  European  situation,  but  which  was  not  granted.* 
On  the  contrary,  Germany  was  expected  to  pay  no  less  than  £1000 
million  in  the  first  two  years.  This  proposal  was  an  object  of 
Keynes’  special  criticism. 

Secondly,  Britain  has  had  an  advantage,  which  would  not 
have  accrued  to  Germany,  in  having  one  of  her  principal  competi- 
tors in  foreign  markets  laid  low.  This  time  the  victorious  powers 
have  adopted  a policy  diametrically  opposed  to  tliat  recommended 
to  them  by  M.  Mantoux,  a kind  of  inverse  reparations.  Instead 
of  making  it  incumbent  upon  Germany  to  incrense  her  industrial 
capacity  and  compete  furiously  everywhere,  we  have  reduced  her 
industrial  capacity  and  her  power  as  a competitor. 

The  third  and  most  important  point  relates  to  the  will  to 
achieve.  This  brings  us  back  to  the  precise  definition  of  what  is 
practicable.  If  Britain  had  had  to  raise  her  exports,  not  in  order 
to  achieve  balance  and  regain  her  fair  prospects  in  the  world,  but 
in  order  to  meet  a levy  imposed  by  victors,  would  it  iiave  been 
psychologicallv  possible  for  her  to  make  the  tremendous  effort 
which  she  has  made  in  the  last  three  years?  Would  she  have 
done  this,  even  if  threatened  with  sanctions  on  her  frontiers? 
Again,  we  might  wonaer  if  she  would  have  achieved  it,  even  if 
occupied  by  a victorious  power.  It  remains  doubtful  what  the 
Allies  could  have  extracted,  even  had  they  embarked  upon  the 
heroic  task  of  total  occupation  of  Germany.  We  lack  experience 
of  what  civilised  white  men  wiU  do  under  the  lash,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  proposed  surpluses  represent  greater  output 
per  head  than  backward  people  ever  produce  at  all.  They  could 
only  be  gained  by  the  utmost  exertion  of  skill,  ingenuity  and 
applied  science.  Thus  the  example  is  indecisive.  It  suggests  that 
Keynes  erred  on  the  side  of  leniency ; yet  when  psychological 
factors  are  taken  into  account,  he  may  have  been  in  the  right. 

Finally,  we  have  to  deal  with  the  third  proposition,  namely, 
that  the  economic  issue  was  more  important  than  the  political 

* Cf.  pp.  ‘^46-8  above. 


[1919 


290  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

questions  that  had  to  be  decided.  To  what  a different  future 
Europe  might  have  looked  forward,  if  either  Mr.  Lloyd  George  or 
Mr.  Wilson  had  apprehended  that  the  most  serious  of  the  problems 
which  claimed  their  attention  were  not  political  or  territorial  but 
financial  and  economic.’’  * This  opinion  was  supported  by  a 
review  of  the  state  of  Europe  in  chapters  2 and  6. 

The  statement  that  economics  was  more  important  than 
politics  was  in  itself  a political  judgment.  We  have  seen  that  two 
distinguished  authorities,  Eyre  Crowe,  and  Mr.  Churchill  writing 
in  1929,  had  doubts  about  Keynes’  qualifications  in  the  political 
field.  But  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish.  Crowe  at  least  was  prob- 
ably thinking  of  politics  in  the  narrow  sense,  namely,  the  ways  and 
means  of  diplomacy.  We  may  also  think  of  political  wisdom  in  a 
broader  sense,  namely,  judgment  about  what  forces  are  likely  to 
rouse  passions  and  sway  men’s  minds  towards  revolution  or  war. 
In  this  broader  sense  Keynes’  aptitude  may  not  have  been  so 
deficient.  Indeed,  it  may  have  been  superior  to  many  of  his 
contemporaries. 

He  opened  chapter  2 by  stiessing  the  precamousness  of  that 
European  prosperity,  which  in  the  preceding  decades  we  had  come 
to  take  as  a matter  of  course.  After  1870  there  was  developed 
on  a large  scale  an  unprecedented  situation,  and  the  economic 
condition  of  Europe  became  during  the  next  fifty  years  unstable 
and  peculiar  This  was  a characteristic  vein  of  thought  in 
Keynes,  the  idea  that  conditions  which  many  accept  as  normal 
are  in  fact  dependent  on  very  special  circumstances.  We  have 
seen  it  already  in  his  account  of  the  British  Gold  Standard  m his 
book  on  Indian  currency.  The  theme  was  to  recui  when  he 
argued  that  full  employment  was  not  the  inevitable  consequence 
of  the  working  of  a free  enterprise  system,  but  had  occurred  before 
1914  owing  to  a number  of  favourable  factors.  The  precariousness 
of  European  prosperity  was  analysed  under  three  heads  — the 
pressure  of  population,  entailing  an  abnormally  large  dependence 
on  overseas  supplies ; the  intense  division  of  labour  in  Europe, 
which  made  the  surrounding  countries  peculiarly  dependent  on 
German  prosperity ; and  the  insecurity  of  the  psychological  basis 
of  capitalism.  The  second  of  these  points  was  the  most  germane 
to  his  topic,  and  perhaps  the  most  valid.  In  chapter  6 there  was  a 
fine  account  of  how  economic  convulsion  gives  rise  to  inflation 
with  all  its  concomitant  evils. 

> The  EeoMmtc  Consequences  of  the  Peace,  p.  134. 


* Ibid,  p.  7. 


AM.  36]  ECONOMIC  CONSEQUENCES  a8i 

It  is  not  necessary  to  agree  with  Keynes  in  detail  on  all  these 
points.  In  reading  the  book  one  feels  that  he  was  tentatively 
and  no  doubt  hurriedly  searching  for  arguments  to  support  a 
conviction,  which  was  itself  more  solidly  based  than  the  supports 
which  he  outlined.  It  was  in  fact  what  we  have  tome  to  call  a 
“ hunch 

And  now,  as  we  look  back  over  those  twenty  years  between 
the  wars,  do  we  not  find  that  it  has  indeed  been  economic  dis- 
turbance that  has  been  the  main  cause  of  our  troubles?  The 
great  successive  political  crises  have  in  fact  been  caused  by 
economic  disorders.  It  was  economic  turmoil  that  so  inflamed 
the  impatience  of  millions  of  Germans  that  they  were  willing  to 
accept  the  Nazis  as  their  leaders  and  saviours. 

“ If  we  aim  deliberately  at  the  impoverishment  of  Central 
Europe,  vengeance,  I dare  predict,  will  not  limp.  Nothing  can 
then  delay  for  very  long  that  final  Civil  War  between  the  forces 
of  Reaction  and  the  despairing  convulsions  of  Revolution,  before 
which  the  horrors  of  the  late  German  war  will  fade  into  nothing, 
and  which  will  destroy,  whoever  is  victor,  the  civilisation  and 
progress  of  our  generation.”  • The  policy  of  impoverishment  was 
called  to  a halt  five  years  later,  and  the  full  effect  of  its  initial 
enforcement  was  delayed  for  a period.  Keynes’  financial  col- 
leagues often  noticed  that  he  made  predictions  of  remarkable 
accuracy  regarding  forces  likely  to  affect  the  values  of  assets,  but 
was  at  fault  in  the  timing.  He  predicted  that  events  would 
occur  during  the  coming  weeks  that  in  fact  occurred  six  montlis 
later,  or  predicted  something  in  six  months  that  occurred  two  or 
three  years  later. 

I see  in  the  passage  I have  quoted  a dim  presage  of  the  Nazi 
violence  which  in  due  course  developed  with  effects  that  are  still 
unfolding.  The  prediction  was  not  clothed  with  detail,  but  was 
justified  in  its  trend.  I see  in  it  political  wisdom  of  the  higher 
kind.  It  has.  an  uncanny  insight  into  the  kind  of  things  which 
were  to  happen,  and  a miKiern  flavour  beside  which  the  vaticina- 
tions of  his  contemporaries  in  that  period  seem  stale  and  obsolete. 

There  is  one  final  point  which  must  be  considered.  Keynes 
has  been  taken  to  task  on  the  ground  that  his  book,  with  its 
discouraging  picture  of  Europe,  contributed  towards  driving  the 
Americans  into  a policy  of  isolationism.  This  is  clearly  an  import- 
ant point  and  has  damaged  Keynes’  reputationin  the  minds  of  some. 

‘ * Ibid  p.  831. 


282  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

We  may  first  consider  the  question  of  the  rejection  of  the  Peace 
Treaty  by  the  United  States,  Upon  this  Keynes’  book  had  no 
influence  whatever.  The  decisive  vote  in  the  Senate  occurred 
on  19th  November  1919,  when  a resolution  for  unconditional 
ratification,  requiring  a two-thirds  majority,  was  defeated  by 
fifty-three  votes  to  thirty-eight.  The  Economic  Consequences  of  the 
Peace  had  not  yet  appeared.  This  vote  was  not  affected  by  the 
economic  clauses,  which  the  Americans  regarded  as  outside  their 
province.  The  main  issue  was  the  League  of  Nations,  and  next 
in  importance  the  Shantung  settlement.  Reservations  were  pro- 
posed which  Wilson  could  not  accept.  Of  these  the  one  bearing 
on  reparations  merely  stipulated  that  the  Reparations  Commission 
should  not  regulate  or  interfere  with  exports  from  the  United 
States  to  Germany  or  from  Germany  to  the  United  States,  save 
by  means  approved  by  a joint  resolution  of  Congress.  This 
reservation  alone  would  not  have  killed  the  Treaty,  and  it  was 
certainly  not  inspired  by  Keynes. 

It  is  true  that  negotiations  pioceeded  until  the  following 
February ; and  that,  as  soon  as  the  book  came  cmiI,  passages  wcie 
quoted  by  Wilson's  enemies.  But  throughout  this  period  the 
League  of  Nations  was  the  piincipal  obstacle  to  acceptance,  and 
there  were  no  indi(ations  that  this  obstacle  could  be  overcome. 
The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace  was  neither  here  nor  there. 
Keynes  can  be  entirely  exempted  from  any  shadow  of  responsi- 
bility for  the  great  American  decision,  which  was  to  have  such  a 
vast  effect  on  the  working  out  of  the  European  settlement. 

The  Clitic  may  return  to  the  charge  and  urge  that  the  book 
leinforccd  the  sentiment  of  isolationism  in  the  following  years. 
It  is  incumbent  on  him  to  specify  precisely  how,  but  for  the  book, 
the  situation  would  have  developed  differently.  After  all,  it  was 
not  the  book,  but  the  actual  course  of  events  in  Europe,  culminat- 
ing in  the  fiasco  of  the  Ruhr  invasion,  that  mainly  swayed  the 
Americans.  The  book  did  little  more  than  give  pleasure  to  them 
by  confirming  their  worst  suspicions.  Yet  the  Americans  did  not 
remain  altogether  aloof ; after  the  settlement  devised  by  Dawes, 
himself  an  American,  their  financiers  lavished  their  money  upon 
Europe.  In  so  far  as  the  book,  by  its  influence  on  Biitish  opinion, 
prepared  the  way  for  such  a settlement  at  an  earlier  date  than 
might  otherwise  have  been  possible,  it  expedited  American 
assistance  to  Europe.  No  doubt  any  self-disparagement  has 
unfortunate  repercussions  abroad.  The  allegations  against  Keynes 


aet.361  economic  consequences  283 

in  this  respect  have  been  grossly  exaggerated,  and  without  sense 
of  proportion  or  regard  foi  chronology. 

And  so  he  had  said  what  he  believed.  He  incurred  great 
odium  in  official  circles  and  was  for  many  years  in  the  wilderness. 
This  was  a turning-point  in  his  career.  Hitherto,  although  spurn- 
ing the  India  Office,  he  had  been  drawn  more  and  more  into 
consultation  in  official  circles.  His  leputation  steadily  grew.  His 
war  work  had  been  supremclv  effic  icnt  and  was  pr.iised  by  all. 
His  fertility  of  ideas  seemed  boundless.  Knowledgeable  persons 
before  1910  would  have  pointed  to  him  as  the  man  likely  to  have 
the  biggest  inside  influence  on  the  conduct  of  out  finaiKial  affairs 
in  the  coming  time.  But  now  he  had  buint  his  boats.  He  had 
appealed  against  the  authorities  t<»  a widci  pablic.  The  offuial 
world  could  no  longer  use  him. 

There  was  a compensation.  In  the  period  after  1919  his  main 
energy  was  directed  to  guiding  public  opinion  on  current  topics. 
But,  as  the  years  passed,  his  thought  deepened  and  he  began  t<) 
suspect  that  our  persistent  trouble^-  weic  not  wholly  du^  to  mistakes 
and  follies,  but  were  largely  caused  by  a deep-seated  malady  in 
the  system  of  tree  exchange.  He  set  himself  to  devise  remedies 
which  would  enable  that  system  to  survive  by  cuiing  it  of  its  mam 
defects.  And  so  it  happened  that  when  the  second  great  cata- 
strophe came,  he  had  armed  himself  to  stand  forward  at  the  new 
dawn  of  things,  not  is  a critic,  but  as  a constructor.  Is  it  an 
exaggeration  to  ^a'^t  him  for  the  role  of  the  “ Prince  when  the 
second  war  dicw  to  its  close.'*  After  all,  the  United  Nations 
Organisation  does  not  contain  new  ideas  of  great  import.  Men 
had  come  to  believe  tliai  the  economic  issue  was  the  crucial  one. 
Keynes  was  <it  hand  now  with  his  timely  message  that  the  system 
office  enterprise  could  be  made  to  function  better,  that  employ- 
ment could  be  sustained  at  a high  and  stable  level,  that  trade 
depression  could  be  avoided,  and  that  the  nations  could  co-opcratc* 
to  ensure  that  these  benefits  were  eujoyed  on  a woild-wide  scale. 
Keynes,  more  than  any  i icr  man,  seemed  to  be  the  bearer  of 
doctiincs  which  gave  new  hope.  Three  new  personalities  were 
now  astride  the  world.  American  affaiis  were  in  the  hands  of 
one  greater  than  Woodrow  Wilson.  In  Britain  was  a man  “ with 
a policy  deeply  grounded  in  permanent  principle,  tenacity, 
honesty,  loyal  leadership  But  a happy  ending  was  not  to  be 
achieved  easily.  Once  again  m the  diama,  as  it  unfolded,  there 

^ Ci  p -bo  supia 


884  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  ri9t9 

were  hints  of  tragedy.  One  great  man  was  stricken  down  by 
death,  another  removed  from  power  for  the  time  being  by  the 
exigencies  of  party  politics,  and  on  the  face  of  the  third  a hostile 
expression  began  to  appear.  And  then  — the  “ Prince  ” himself 
was  taken  from  us.  Were  “ the  forces  of  the  half-world  ” to 
triumph  again  on  this  second  occasion  ? There  was  still  a gleam 
of  hope.  “ Prince  ” Wilson  had  wielded  his  power  by  oratory 
and  statesmanship ; Keynes’  strength  lay  in  his  ideas.  Ideas  do 
not  die  with  the  man.  Thus  it  is  still  possible  that  the  powers  for 
good  may  regroup  themselves,  and  the  weary  nations  leap  forward 
to  new  prosperity. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


RECONSTRUCTION 

1 

ON  5th  June  1919,  while  Keynes  was  spending  his  thirty- 
sixth  birthday  lying  on  his  sick-bed  in  Paris,  Ghve  Bell 
and  his  Bloomsbury  friends  were  having  an  enjoyable  and 
indeed  a thrilling  evening.  It  was  one  of  those  rare  first  nights 
when  an  English  audience  allows  itself  to  be  carried  away  on  a 
great  wave  of  enthusiasm  — the  first  performance  of  the  Boutique 
Fantasque.  Every  foot  of  standing  room  in  the  Alhambra  was 
occupied.  The  Otseau  de  Feu  w as  given  first  and  applauded ; but 
it  was  plain  that  expectancy  was  concentrated  on  the  new  produc- 
tion that  was  to  follow.  Throughout  the  Boutique  ripples  of  applause 
ran  through  the  audience,  and  when  the  Can-Can  dancers  ap- 
peared, the  house  was  drowned  in  a great  roar  of  “ Massine ! 
Lopokova ! ” Excitement  continued  to  mount.  Expectations 
were  surpassed.  All  agreed  that  the  performance  was  superb. 

The  whole  season  was  one  of  gieat  triumph  for  Diaghilev. 
In  the  reaction  from  the  sorrows  of  war  phlegmatic  London  was 
in  a receptive  mood,  ready  to  entertain  new  experiences  and 
appreciate  new  forms  of  expression.  When  the  utterances  of 
political  leaders  were  reaching  their  lowest  depths  and  the  news 
from  Paris  was  blurred  and  depressing,  the  voiceless  beauties  of 
the  ballet  seemed  to  bnng  a new  message  of  hope.  The  woild 
was  going  awry ; but  here  before  our  eyes  something  was  enacted 
which  achieved  perfection.  We  could  console  ounelves  that  man’s 
powers  were  not  decayinj. . 

Bloomsbury  shared  in  the  enthusiasm ; contacts  made  in  1918 
were  revived,  and  once  again  the  painters  and  dancers  flowed  in 
and  out  of  46  Gordon  Square.  It  was  rather  a strange  confluence ; 
for  there  on  the  one  hand  were  Derain  and  Picasso  and  these 
wonderful  Russian  dancers,  and  there  on  the  other  was  a group 
of  rather  academic  English  folk,  talking  quietly^  critically,  intel- 
lectually, stretching  oubtheir  hands  with  gestures  of  warm  welcome 


286  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

from  a background  so  very  different.  Under  the  stimulus  of  their 
appreciation  for  these  great  foreigners,  they  dissolved  and  became 
exuberant,  Keynes  arrived  in  the  midst  of  all  this  on  his  return 
from  Paris.  What  a change  of  atmosphere ! Towards  the  end 
of  the  season  he  helped  to  organise  a great  party  in  Gordon 
Square,  a culminating  occasion  of  gaiety  and  revelry.  Unhappily 
Lydia  Lopokova,  the  brightest  star,  had  temporarily  withdrawn 
herself  from  the  ballet  and  disappeared  from  the  scene  of  action. 

In  these  months  of  June  and  July  Keynes  divided  his  time  be- 
tween London,  Cambridge  and  Charleston.  Important  decisions 
had  to  be  taken.  It  was  clear  to  him  that  he  did  not  wish  to 
return  to  the  pattern  of  his  pre-war  life,  in  which  he  had  had  to 
work  so  hard  at  teaching,  external  examining  and  other  minor 
chores  in  order  to  make  a reasonable  livelihood.  He  felt  he  had 
a vocation  now  to  intervene  actively  in  shaping  public  opinion. 
He  had  knowledge  and  experience  and  a clear  vision  of  what 
ought,  and  what  ought  not,  to  be  done.  He  must  not  become  so 
cluttered  up  with  loutinc  work  as  to  be  unable  to  give  his  main 
energies  to  the  salvation  of  Europe. 

No  doubt  theie  was  another  stiand  in  his  thinking.  Although 
he  entered  with  zest  into  his  teaching  work,  and  enjoyed  it  thor- 
oughly, he  had  never  felt  attracted  by  the  prospect  of  the  life 
of  an  ordinary  college  tutor.  Something  had  always  beckoned 
him  to  a wider  field  of  action.  Could  he  not  find  a way  of  com- 
bining his  work  lor  King’s,  which  he  loved,  with  other  work  in 
London,  which  might  be  more  rcmuneiative  and  would  keep  him 
in  touch  with  the  centre  of  affairs  ? 

Money  was  certainly  a problem.  He  had  no  inheritance,  and, 
so  far,  had  had  no  business  connections.  But  he  felt  that  his  experi- 
ence  in  the  Treasury  could  be  turned  to  good  account ; one  who 
had  managed  the  external  finances  of  the  nation  during  the  war 
with  acknowledged  success  would  surely  have  some  market  value 
in  the  world  of  finance.  He  must  look  around.  By  temperament 
he  was  courageous  and  always  ready  to  take  risks.  In  June  1919 
he  decided  to  reduce  his  University  and  College  commitments,  in 
the  hope  that  something  would  turn  up. 

Accordingly,  he  explained  to  his  College  that  he  did  not  wish 
to  be  too  heavily  burdened  with  pupils.  He  informed  the  Uni- 
versity that  he  would  lecture  once  a week  only,  namely  on  the 
“ Economic  Aspects  of  the  Peace  Treaty  ”,  (As  a consequence 
of  this  he  resigned  his  Girdler  lectureship  in  May  of  the  following 


aet.  36]  RECONSTRUCTION  287 

year.)  There  was  some  discussion  in  June  about  bursarial  matters 
at  King’s ; a committee  had  already  reported  with  the  suggestion 
that  Keynes  be  asked  to  undertake  duties  in  connection  with  the 
College  finances  and  accounts.  No  doubt  the  College  wished  to 
obtain  the  benefit  of  his  expert  knowledge,  but  it  was  not  yet 
ready  with  a definite  proposal.  Only  in  the  following  November 
was  he  appointed  Second  Bursar.  The  stipend  wa<  X,ioo  a year ! 

A proposal  came  to  him  during  June  to  be  Chairman  of  a 
forcign-owned  bank  at  a salary  of  ^'2000  a year.  1 1 was  explained 
that  the  duties  would  not  be  such  as  to  occupy  him  more  than  one 
day  a week  or  interfere  with  his  academic  duties  in  Cambridge. 
A tempting  offer  for  a mans,  whose  atadcmic  appointments 
were  apt  only  to  bring  him  in  sums  of  the  order  of /^loo  or  £200 
a year.  He  consulted  Sir  Robm  Kindcrsley,  Mr.  Brand  and 
Mr.  Falk.  The  Bank  was  concerned  with  the  Imances  of  Scmidi- 
navian  trade,  and  Keynes  had  some  doubt  whether  he  would  have 
effective  control,  llicre  was  also  the  idea  that  a foreign  connec- 
tion might  jeopardise  other  appointments  in  the  ('ity.  His  friends 
advised  him  against  accepting,  and  he  took  their  advice. 

J.  M.  Keynes  to  M}s,  Keynes^  6th  Ane^nst 

Charleston. 

After  a very  feverish  ten  davs  in  London,  1 have  setded  down 
here  for  the  rest  of  the  summer.  The  weekend  before  last  1 spent  at  a 
rather  amusin,^  p<ut>  at  the  Asquiths,  -the  Grand  Duke  Michael 
and  Countess  Ibiby,  Mrs.  Kcppel,  the  Countess  of  Crewe,  etc.  etc., 
old-world  celebrities  as  ou  see,  off  whom  I won  £22  at  bridge.  On 
the  following  Tuesday  I gave  a pa^ty  at  Gordon  Square  to  round  up 
the  season,  which  was  judged  a great  success,  — I was  too  much 
occupied  with  the  stienuous  staff  work  of  host  to  see  much  of  it.  We 
sat  down  thirty-three  to  supper  shortly  before  midnight  and  did 
not  rise  from  table  until  half-past  one.  It  is  astonishing  what  the 
resources  of  u household  are,  when  pushed.  The  next  evening  was 
amidst  great  excitement  he  last  night  of  the  ballet,  all  of  my  various 
worlds  being  there.  I also  kept  various  business  appointments,  gave 
evidence  before  the  Indian  Currency  Committee,  addressed  the 
Fight  the  Famine  Council,  opened  a discussion  on  the  Peace  Terms 
at  a city  Dining  Club,  and  lunched  and  dined  out  every  day,  — 
after  which  I was  quite  ready  for  the  country.  It’s  amusing  to  pass 
from  Cambridge,  where  I’m  a nonentity,  to  London,  where  I’m  a 
celebrity.  • 


988  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1919 

I have  arranged  for  my  book  [Economic  Consequences]  to  be 
published  by  Macmillans. 

Here  my  breakfast  comes  at  8 and  my  book  occupies  me  until 
lunch,  before  which  I am  not  seen  in  the  public  rooms.  After  lunch 
The  Times  and  after  The  Times  gardening  until  tea  time.  After  tea 
my  correspondence.  All  very  regular.  I have  brought  my  own 
servants  down  here,  as  the  total  party  is  large,  and  Gordon  Square 
is  shut  up. 

Old  Asquith,  by  the  way,  is  coming  to  next  King’s  Founder's 
Day  as  my  guest  and  will  probably  stay  the  weekend. 

During  August  and  September  he  was  immersed  in  writing 
his  famous  book,  but  not  so  immersed  that  his  mind  could  not 
dwell  on  other  matters  also.  Early  in  August  he  began  a new 
career,  which  he  was  not  to  relinquish  for  many  years,  that  of  a 
speculator.  Depositing  a modest  cover  with  Mr.  Falk’s  firm,  he 
began  buying  and  selling  foreign  currencies  forward  in  large 
quantities.  His  operations  included  the  rupee,  the  dollar,  the 
French  franc,  the  mark,  the  lira  and  the  Dutch  florin.  Broadly, 
he  tended  to  be  a bull  of  dollars  and  a bear  of  the  European 
currencies.  His  trading  was  active  and  continuous,  large  amounts 
being  bought  and  sold  every  few  days,  but  it  was  always  based 
on  his  judgment  as  an  economist,  and  not  on  rumours  of  the  market- 
place, He  soon  found  that  he  was  making  substantial  profits. 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  Mrs.  Keynes^  yrd  September  igig 

I haven’t  lived  such  a regular  life  for  years  and  am  very  well. 

My  diversion,  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  tedium  in  a country  life, 
is  speculation  in  the  foreign  exchanges,  which  will  shock  father  but 
out  of  which  I hope  to  do  very  well. 

At  this  time  he  entered  deeply  into  certain  plans  of  Mr.  Henry 
Strakosch  for  setting  up  a new  company  to  sell  South  African 
gold.  He  and  Strakosch  were  to  be  the  managers*  It  was  felt 
that  existing  marketing  arrangements  could  be  improved.  There 
was  active  discussion  throughout  the  autumn ; theie  was  a meeting 
with  the  Rothschilds  and  consultation  with  the  South  African 
Government.  In  the  end  it  was  decided  that  it  would  be  undesir- 
able to  start  operations  until  the  South  African  Government  had 
defined  its  currency  policy  more  clearly.  Early  in  1920  General 
Smuts  wrote  to  Keynes  asking  him  to  come  out  to  South  Africa 
for  two  months  to  define  their  currency  policy  for  them,  but  the 


A*T.  36]  RECONSTRUCTION  389 

invitation  was  declined.  He  was  all  in  the  midst  of  laying  the 
foundation  of  his  career  in  the  City  of  London,  his  book  had  just 
appeared  and  he  ought  to  be  ready  to  take  part  in  any  contro- 
versies arising  out  of  it,  and  he  did  not  wish  to  make  a break  in 
his  College  duties,  so  lately  resumed. 

Meanwhile  another  opening  had  oexurred.  In  September, 
through  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Falk,  he  was  invited  to  join  the 
Board  of  the  National  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  of  which 
he  became  Chairman  in  1921,  a position  which  he  retained  until 
1938.  His  financial  career  was  beginning. 

In  the  midst  of  writing  and  business,  he  was  keeping  his  eye 
on  developments  in  Europe.  Early  in  October  he  was  invited 
by  Dr.  Vissering  to  attend  a meeting  of  experts  on  international 
finance  which  was  organised  by  the  Bank  of  the  Netherlands. 
The  agenda  was  to  consider  how  the  credit- worthiness  of  the 
principal  nations  could  be  revived  and  an  international  loan 
floated.  Keynes  was  encouraged  by  the  constructive  attitude  of 
the  Dutch  and  went  to  another  meeting  later  in  the  year. 

Macmillan’s  were  doing  his  book.  He  was  anxious  that  the 
first  edition  should  be  a large  one  and  consist  of  at  least  5000 
copies.  He  had  (onfidence  that  it  would  interest  the  public. 
After  discussion,  it  was  agreed  that  he  should  take  the  risk  himself 
and  pay  for  the  publication,  giving  Macmillans  a royalty  of  10 
per  cent.  (He  had  shared  profits  on  Indian  Cuirency  avl  Finance 
on  a 50-50  basis.)  By  paying  for  the  publication  he  gave  himself 
the  prospect  of  aiuch  bigger  profits  should  the  sales  prove  large. 
In  the  long  run  this  arrangement  with  Macmillans  was  higlily 
advantageous  for  him,  ince  his  other  books  were  published  on 
the  same  basis,  but  misfortune  dogged  The  Economic  Consequences 
of  the  Peace,  both  as  regards  the  5000  copies  and,  as  we  shall  see 
presently,  his  profit  on  the  book. 

It  was  printed  by  Messrs.  R.  & R.  Clark  of  Edinburgh  and 
the  sheets  came  to  London  by  sea ; a ship  carrying  2000  copies 
was  driven  eastwards  b^  torm  and  finally  wrei^ked ; the  copies 
were  thrown  overboard  in  order  to  lighten  the  load.  Thus,  after 
all,  the  book  went  out  of  print  soon  after  it  appeared.  Meanwhile 
the  kindly  waves  of  the  North  Sea  were  carrying  the  precious 
sheets  in  an  easterly  direction,  and,  lapping  gently  upon  the  coast 
of  Denmark,  brought  three  large  bales  safely  ashore.  The  pages 
had  not  been  much  injured  by  the  water.  Keynes  first  heard  of 
this  from  an  old  Cambridge  man,  Mr.  David  ^Pritchard.  The 

u 


290  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1920 

sheets  were  sold  by  public  auction  in  Denmark. 

He  was  having  trouble  on  the  American  side.  He  consulted 
Mr,  Felix  Frankfurter,  who  passed  through  London  on  his  way 
home  from  the  Paris  Peace  Conference,  where  Keynes  had  made 
friends  with  him.  Frankfurter  offered  to  help  and  took  a copy 
back  with  him.  On  the  boat  he  showed  it  to  two  fellow  pass- 
engers, Brandeis  and  Graham  Wallas,  who  pronounced  it  to  be  a 
great  work.  On  arrival  he  gave  it  to  Mr.  Walter  Lippmann,  then 
a reader  for  the  recently  founded  firm  of  Harcourt  Brace  & Go. 
Frankfurter  wrote  back  explaining  that  this  was  a new  firm, 
but  that  he  had  consulted  people  of  judgment  who  thought 
that  it  would  do  well,  Keynes  characteristically  replied  that  he 
had  complete  trust  in  Frankfurter’s  discretion ; let  him  go  ahead.' 
The  early  success  of  Harcourt  Brace  was  not  entirely  unconnected 
with  their  publication  of  The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace. 
A year  latei  Keynes  persuaded  Lytton  Strachey  to  change  his 
American  firm  and  undertook  all  the  negotiations  with  Harcourt 
Brace  for  the  publication  of  Queen  Victoria  in  America. 

The  Economic  Consequences  appeared  in  England  at  the  end  of 
Decembei  1919,  and  a month  later  m the  Ignited  States.  Its 
impact  on  the  public  mind  was  immediate  and  its  reception 
tremendous.  Long  reviews  appeared  in  all  the  papeis,  in  the 
United  States  sometimes  with  banner  headlines.  For  a month  it 
was  the  main  topic  of  c onversation. 

Reviewers  predisposed  to  agree  with  its  opinions  were  lyrical 
in  its  praises.  All  used  such  phrases  as  “ a book  that  will  have 
to  be  most  seriously  considered  ”,  “ the  most  important  book 
which  has  appeared  since  the  Armistice  ”,  “ more  exciting  than  a 
novel”.  Many  reviews  were  hostile;  but  only  a few  very 
insignificant  papers  presumed  to  make  light  of  the  book.  The 
icst,  even  when  advancing  what  they  deemed  to  be  weighty 
cnticisms,  paid  it  the  compliment  of  careful  attention.  They  made 
it  plain  that  an  effective  blow  had  been  struck  and  that  the  reply 
must  be  well  thought  out.  One  has  the  impression  that,  even  on 
the  first  round  of  discussion,  most  critics  took  defence  of  the 
economic  clauses  of  the  Treaty  to  be  1 ather  a forlorn  hope ; they 
made  the  most  of  the  wi  iter’s  lack  of  political  expeiience  and 
background.  There  was  also  much  stern  rebuke.  An  ex-member 

* 1 rank fu ter  also  arrant^Lcl  that  extracts  from  the  hook  should  appear  in  the 
New  Republic  For  many  years  thereafter  this  journal  piovided  an  important  outlet  in 
the  United  States  for  Keynes*  views 


AitT  36]  RECONSTRUCTION  »9f 

of  the  Treasury,  who  had  been  at  Paris,  had  no  right  to  make  an 
attack  on  a treaty  to  which  his  country  was  party.  The  portraits 
of  the  Big  Three  were  said  to  be  in  bad  taste.  Lacking  good  argu- 
ment, the  critics  took  refuge  in  moral  censure.  There  was  another 
sentiment,  sometimes  mounting  to  passion,  in  the  hostile  reviews, 
which  was  more  respectable  than  the  moral  reprobation,  because 
more  genuinely  felt,  namely,  violent  displeasure  at  what  one  re- 
viewer called  Keynes’  “ fervent  indifference  to  German  criminal- 
ity ”.  Lloyd  George  was  no  doubt  right  in  deeming  that  an 
intense  hatred  of  the  Germans  was  still  widespread,  and  Keynes’ 
plea  that  the  terms  were  impiaMicable  as  well  as  unjust  was 
brushed  aside  by  the  torrent  of  hostility  to  the  defeated  enemy. 
This  choleric  pugnacity  outlasting  the  war  makes  curious  reading 
for  one  who  has  lived  through  the  afteimatb  of  the  second  war, 
in  which  the  Germans  displayed  attributes  much  moie  detestable. 
Is  it  that  the  British  have  giown  too  weary  to  nuituie  lusty  feelings 
of  indignation  ? Or  is  it  possible  that  moral  standards  have  risen 
since  the  c lose  of  the  first  war  ? Is  it  possible,  even,  that  Keynes’ 
own  influence  has  altered  the  feelincft  of  the  younger  generation 
about  decent  behaviour  in  victory? 

He  was  inundated  with  requests  to  wiitc  and  speak,  lefusing 
most.  Ill  Januaiy  1920,  however,  he  made  a little  tour  and 
addressed  three  meetings  in  Liverpool  and  Manchester.  One  of 
these  was  organised  by  the  League  of  Nations  Union.  There 
were  violent  loote^ts  against  that  organisation  having  anything 
to  do  with  such  a man. 

Yet,  despite  the  vehement  denunciations,  the  bluster  and  the 
moral  rcpiimands,  Keynes’  arg aments  quickly  sank  in.  Those  of 
leftward  opinions  acclaimed  a new  leadei  ; those  of  the  centre 
and  right  were  deeply  impressed,  for  Keynes  had  certain  qualities 
which  sharply  distinguished  him  iiom  other  writers  of  the  Vft. 
He  had  a strong  vein  of  realism  which  appealed  to  the  type  of 
mind  that  disliked  Utopian  fervour.  He  appeared  to  be  in  touch 
with  actuality,  to  unders  and  how  things  worked,  to  be  a connois- 
seur of  the  high  affairs  of  state  beyond  the  grasp  of  ordinary  folk ; 
despite  his  radicalism,  he  seemed  to  many  on  the  Conservative 
side  to  be  one  of  themselves,  because  he  spoke  in  terms  of  reality 
and  not  vague  aspiration.  They  looked  one  another  in  the  eye : 
“ I suppose  this  fellow  is  right ; I suppose  we  have  made  a most 
fearful  hash  of  things  ”. 

Keynes  retained  his  poise.  He  paid  no  attention  to  personal 


292  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  I1920 

attacks;  they  were  a matter  for  his  own  conscience,  and  that 
was  clear  enough.  Very  soon  he  felt  justified  in  taking  the  view 
that  his  main  battle  was  already  won.  All  those  of  reasonably 
good  information  had  been  convinced  by  his  arguments  that  the 
Treaty  was  unworkable ; the  only  remaining  difference  of  opinion 
was  whether  to  have  an  outright  revision  or  to  trust  that  in  the 
working  the  terms  would  be  changed  out  of  recognition.  Mr. 
John  Foster  Dulles  wrote  a long  letter  to  The  Times  on  i6th  Feb- 
ruary defending  the  American  delegation  at  Paris,  while  admitting 
that  he  had  ‘‘  reached  the  conclusion,  although  with  considerable 
doubt,  that  pensions  and  separation  allowances  were  not  properly 
chargeable  to  Germany  ”.  He  placed  his  hopes  on  the  wisdom 
of  the  Reparations  Commission  in  making  an  intelligent  allevia- 
tion of  terms  and  modes  of  payment,  “ in  the  event  that  they 
should  prove  to  be  excessive  Keynes  made  a long  reply  on 
19th  February  in  a strain  of  confidence.  “ It  is  more  than  two 
months  since  my  book  was  published,  and  it  has  attracted  much 
notice  and  many  readers.  I have  been  criticised  on  various 
grounds,  personal  and  otherwise.  But  no  one  l^is  made  a serious 
attempt  to  tra\orse  my  main  conclusions.  The  illuminating 
influence  of  time  has  done  its  work,  and  those  conclusions  no 
longer  conflict  with  the  instructed  opinion  of  the  day.” 

Reference  may  be  made  to  another  letter  m The  Times  on 
27th  February,  since  Keynes’  answer  to  it  (ist  March)  is  worth 
quoting  as  a fine  example  of  economy  in  controversial  writing. 
The  letter  of  Keynes’  critic  (onsistcd  of  259  lines  in  the  columns 
of  The  Tme^.  Kevnes’  answer  consisted  of  27,  as  follows  : 

Sir, 

On  November  ^tli,  1918,  the  Allied  Governments,  subject  to  two 
qualifications,  “ declared  their  willingness  to  make  peace  with  the 
Government  of  Germany  on  the  terms  of  peace  laid  down  in  the 
President’s  addiess  to  Congress  of  January  8,  1918,  and  the  principles 
of  settlement  enunciated  in  his  subsequent  Addresses”.  I have 
argued  that  this  agreement  was  not  kept,  and  that  its  breach  is 
dishonourable  to  us 

’s  letter,  which  you  publish  to-day,  is  directed  to  the  con- 
tention, not  that  the  Treaty  is  in  fact  in  accord  with  these  terms  and 
principles,  but  (x)  that,  as  there  was  no  independent  authority  in  a 
position  to  endorse  this  agreement,  it  was  not  a “ contract  ”,  and 
(2)  that  some  of^the  terms  and  principles  in  question  were  so  lacking 
in  legal  precision  that  their  interpretation  “ might  be  argued  for 


ABx.  36]  RECONSTRUCTION  agS 

months  without  any  irrelevance  or  waste  of  time  What,  for 
example  — this  philosopher  asks  — are  “ rival  States  ” ? What  is 
a “ group  of  nations  ” ? What  “ territorial  settlements  ” were 
“ involved  in  this  war  ’*  ? It  is  an  extraordinary  commentary  on  the 

workings  of  the  human  mind  that should  believe  that  he  has 

thus  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  our  good  faith. 

1 am,  Sir,  your  obedient  sen^ant, 

J.  M.  Keynes 

In  the  United  States  there  was  less  moral  reprimand,  and  the 
anti-German  fury  seemed  to  have  died  down.  There  too,  how- 
ever, he  had  many  critics.  There  was  some  exploitation  of  his 
book  by  the  political  opponents  of  the  Piesidcnt,  and  Senator 
Borah  read  long  quotations  in  a speech  in  Congress  on  loth 
February.  Some  reviewers  spotted  that  in  the  contrewersy  about 
the  League,  which  had  been  raging  for  six  month  , the  Americans 
had  been  arguing  off  the  point  and  were  now  being  taught  for 
the  first  time  what  the  Treaty  was  all  about.  However,  it  was 
too  late  to  change,  and  the  Treaty  was  already  doomed  to  defeat 
on  account  of  arguments  previously  adduced.  Friends  of  the 
Treaty  pointed  out  that  the  economic  plight  of  Europe,  as  shown 
in  the  book,  made  it  all  the  more  necessary  for  the  Americans  to 
play  their  part  in  the  l.cague  and  the  Reparations  Commission  in 
getting  wise  and  helpful  decisions. 

In  his  constructive  proposals  Keynes  had  voiced  the  view  that 
the  present  governments  of  Europe  were  untrustworthy,  and  that  a 
change  was  necessary  if  progress  was  to  be  made.  “ If  I had 
influence  with  the  United  States  Treasury,  I would  not  lend  a 
penny  to  a single  one  f the  present  governments  of  Europe.”  * 
This  sentence  was  seized  upon  and  given  a banner  headline  in 
some  American  newspapers. 

Professor  Allyn  Young,  who  had  been  an  expert  in  the  Ameri- 
can delegation  at  Paris,  had  some  correspondence  with  Keynes 
about  the  book  and  gave  pubiiuty  ^ in  America  to  the  following 
passage  in  a letter  which  he  received  : 


J.  M,  Keynes  to  Professor  Allyn  Young,  28th  February  ig20 

As  regr4rds  my  picture  of  the  President,  you  must  remember  two 
things : onr,  that  I wrote  it  in  July  immediately  after  I lefl  Paris  and 

* The  Economic  Consequetices  of  the  Peace,  p.  267. 

2 The  Repuhlican,  Springfield,  Maas.,  ist  April  1920. 


[1920 


294  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

before  I had  any  knowledge  of  his  illness,  and,  two^  that  although  it 
is  generally  taken  as  an  attack  on  him,  I intended  it  not  so  much  as 
an  attack  as  an  explanation.  Many  persons  here  believed  that  in 
spite  of  appeal  ances  the  Treaty  must  be  in  accordance  with  our 
engagements,  because  the  President  had  acquiesced  in  it.  I thought 
it  necessary  therefore  to  give  a human  explanation  of  how  it  came 
about  that  this  was  not  so.  In  spite  of  everything  I say  about  him, 
and  of  all  my  disappointments,  I still  believe  that  essentially  the 
President  played  a nobler  part  at  Pans  than  any  of  his  colleagues. 

Keynes  could  feel  satisfied  with  the  effect  that  he  had  produced 
on  opinion  in  England  at  the  price  of  aspersions  on  his  character. 
It  is  interesting  to  record  that  at  this  time,  when  many  pompous 
persons  were  looking  down  their  noses  and  reviling  him  as  a back- 
slider, he  was  by  no  means  completely  outcast.  On  4th  January 
Bonar  Law  had  him  to  dinner.  On  2nd  February  Austen  Cham- 
berlain, then  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  wiote  to  him  to  obtain 
his  personal  opinion  whether  the  retent  rise  m the  Treasury  bill 
rate  had  been  a wise  move.  While  journalists  castigated  him 
for  letting  down  British  Ministers,  the  Ministers  in  question 
were  seeking  his  advice.  At  that  time  he  held  the  orthodox  view 
that  a stiff  rise  in  money  lates  was  desirable  in  order  to  check 
inflation. 

He  felt  that  things  were  very  slowly  beginning  to  move  in  the 
right  direction.  In  the  Easter  Vacation  he  went  to  Rome  with 
Duncan  Grant  and  Vanessa  Bell.  These  settled  down  to  painting, 
while  Keynes  spent  much  of  his  time  in  a social  round.  He  was 
feted  by  Italian  Liberals  as  a great  man.  He  found  at  the  British 
Embassy  an  old  King’s  man,  Mr.  Haslam,  and  they  had  much  to 
talk  of.  This  revival  of  an  acquaintanceship  had  further  conse- 
quences, foi  on  Ml . Haslam’s  return  to  England  a couple  of  years 
later  he  proposed  to  the  Provincial  Insurance  Company  that 
Keynes  and  Mr.  Falk  should  be  invited  to  act  as  economic 
advisers.  In  I9!;.3  Keynes  joined  the  Board  and  became  President 
of  their  Finance  Committee,  where  he  guided  the  investment  policy 
of  the  Company.  He  remained  a member  of  the  Board  throughout 
his  life,  and  this  was  one  of  his  city  connections  whi(  h he  valued 
most. 

Good  news  came  to  Rome  of  his  financial  speculations.  Since 
leaving  England  he  had  made  a profit  on  francs  of  about  ;^22,ooo 
to  set  against  losses  on  dollars  of  about  ^^8000.  He  was  ‘‘  indulging 
in  an  orgy  of  shopping  of  all  kinds  of  objects  which  in  spite  of  the 


ABx.  36]  RECONSTRUCTION  itg$ 

diiBculty  of  getting  them  to  England  are  amazingly  cheap.  I 
should  think  we  have  bought  about  a ton  so  far,  including 
quantities  of  furniture.”  ' When  tired  of  gaieties,  he  went  with 
the  others  to  the  Sabine  Hills  and  thereafter  proceeded  to  the 
Berensons.  Thus  the  ways  of  peace  were  revived,  and  his  personal 
prospects  seemed  fair. 

Soon  after  his  return  to  England  they  became  overcast.  His 
speculations  were  based  on  his  judgment  of  economic  trends, 
but  they  were  carried  out  in  day-to-day  operations  with  a very 
narrow  mat  gin  of  cover.  This  technique  was  not  really  suited 
to  the  basis  on  which  his  risks  weie  taken.  At  least,  he  would 
require  the  most  consummate  skill  if  he  was  to  match  the  one 
to  the  other.  In  the  latei  days  of  May  the  dollar  showed  an  ob- 
stinate refusal  to  appreciate,  and  the  mark  showed  an  obstinate 
refusal  to  depreciate.  It  was  contrary  to  reason,  but  such  was 
the  case.  The  mark  undeiwent  a suiprising  and  substantial 
revival. 

Looking  back,  we  may  deem  the  use  of  stciling  against  the 
dollar  to  have  been  not  umiatuial.  The  slump  hit  Ameiica  first, 
and  for  some  months  she  had  been  feeling  her  way  towards  a 
policy  of  deflation.  But  the  Federal  Reserve  System  moved 
slowly,  and  its  influence  on  the  market  was  always  delayed; 
there  were  twelve  Banks,  each  with  some  independence,  and  there 
were  numerous  Bank  Rates,  varying  according  to  the  class  of 
paper.  One  could  not  -.ay  that  a b per  cent  Bank  R.ite  was 
generally  established  until  June.  The  Bank  ol  England  retained 
some  of  its  old  skill ; it  put  the  Bank  Rate  up  to  7 per  cent  on 
15th  May,  and  that  as  effective.  Although  relative  interest 
rates  do  not  exeit  thcir  normal  effect  on  the  foreign  exchange 
when  there  is  no  par  of  exchange,  we  may  suppose  that  they  exert 
some  effect,  and  that  the  more  efficient  deflation  on  the  British 
side  was  responsible  for  the  temporary  strengthening  of  steihng. 
The  strength  of  the  mark  is  somewhat  more  difficult  to  explain ; 
it  was  suggested  at  the  le  that  American  investors  were  having 
their  first  flirtation  with  German  Municipal  Bonds,  the  later 
development  of  which,  after  the  new  mark  had  been  stabilised 
by  Schacht  in  1924,  led  to  such  wide-reaching  effects.  The  move- 
ment of  the  mark  at  this  time  may  merely  have  been  a reaction 
from  its  earlier  collapse;  the  other  continental  currencies  also 
showed  an  upward  tendency.  All  these  movements  were  short- 
' letter  to  Mrs  Keynes,  i6th  April.  * 


29?  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [Wo 

lived,  and  when  another  three  months  had  elapsed  the  previous 
trends  had  been  resumed, 

Keynes  could  not  wait  for  three  months.  As  the  later  days 
of  May  ebbed  away,  it  became  clear  that  he  was  ruined.  Between 
the  beginning  of  April  and  the  end  of  May  he  had  lost  £13,125. 
A small  syndicate,  for  part  of  the  resouices  of  which  he  was 
morally  icsponsible,  also  lost  £8498.  Previous  gains  were  wiped 
out,  and  his  small  cover  Sales  had  to  be  effected.  His  firm 
asked  him  to  pay  in  £7000  to  keep  the  account  open.  They  gave 
him  favourable  treatment,  which  helped  to  carry  him  through. 

It  is  clear  that,  in  the  last  resort,  such  a call  was  not  beyond 
the  means  of  his  parents.  Dr.  Keynes  had  capital  and  would  be 
ready  to  help.  Maynard  Keynes  himself  argued  in  letrospect 
that  at  the  worst  point  his  own  assets  were  just  enough  to  meet 
his  liabilities,  on  the  assumption  that  he  sold  all  his  pictures, 
books  and  other  possessions  ; there  may  have  been  a little  wishful 
thinking  here,  llowever,  the  position  was  clearly  not  irretrievable. 
It  would  indeed  have  been  a disaster  if  the  man  who  had  so  recently 
set  world  opinion  agog  by  claiming  to  know  bettgr  than  the  mighty 
of  the  land  had  himself  become  involved  in  bankruptcy.  One 
can  imagine  the  banner  headlines.  He  was  never  really  near  such 
complete  disaster. 

In  the  event  the  call  of  his  firm  was  met  in  part  by  a loan  of 
£5000  from  a famous  financier,  with  whom  he  had  no  close 
personal  relations,  but  who  knew,  through  a third  party,  of  his 
work  at  Paris  and  admired  it  greatly.  This  was  repaid  in  Decem- 
ber. For  the  rest  he  had  another  resource.  There  was  The 
Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace.  He  had  already  had  large  sales 
in  England,  and  in  the  course  of  business  Macmillans  had  advanced 
him  £1000.  That  had  already  gone.  They  would  not  ordinarily 
settle  his  account  till  after  ist  July.  He  wrote  to  request  an  ad- 
vance settlement  in  respect  of  what  was  due.  They  promptly  sent 
him  a cheque  for  £1500.  Did  he  finger  it  lovingly?  This  was 
the  reward  for  his  masterpiece,  a work  of  passion  and  anguish  of 
spirit.  He  had  torn  himself  away  from  the  hateful  coils  of  Paris 
in  order  to  drain  all  his  resources  of  knowledge  and  skill  and  art 
into  persuading  the  world  to  be  more  wise  and  generous.  It  was 
the  great  work  of  his  life  so  far ; perhaps  he  would  not  achieve  such 
another.  There  was  the  £1500  lying  on  his  desk.  It  was  a just 
reward.  But  it  was  no  longer  his.  It  would  be  paid  into  his  bank 
and  at  once  paid  dut  again,  to  swell  the  balances  of  those  sagacious 


a*t.36]  reconstruction  a97 

persons  who  thought  that  the  mark  had  a rosy  future  and  the 
dollar  a poor  one.^ 

2 

His  parents,  whom  he  took  into  his  confidence  about  the 
set-back,  did  not  offer  reproaches,  but  advised  cantion  in  the 
coming  year.  We  may  be  confident  that  he  had  learnt  his  lesson. 
The  intellectual  apparatus  would  be  brought  to  bear  to  make  quite 
sure  that  this  would  not  recur.  To  expect  caution  was  per- 
haps asking  too  much;  this  was  beyond  his  range;  prudence 
he  might  conceivably  achieve.  The  loan  had  sufficed  to  carry 
him  through.  W^ithin  a few  weeks  he  was  deeply  in  again, 
working  on  the  same  general  lines.  He  was  temperamentally 
daring  and  confident  of  his  own  reasoning.  would  have  been 
against  his  nature  not  to  back  it  with  all  he  had.  Besides,  this 
was  his  fight  for  freedom.  He  had  no  inheritance  which  he  could 
enlarge  by  more  orthodox  financial  mctht)ds.  In  the  previous 
year  there  had  been  some  hint  that  he  might  be  offered  a place  on 
the  board  of  one  of  the  great  Biitish  banks ; ^ his  book  had  made 
that  quite  out  of  the  question  now.  He  was  determined  not  to 
relapse  into  salaried  drudgery.  He  must  be  financially  indepen- 
dent. He  lelt  that  he  had  that  in  him  which  would  justify  such 
independence.  He  had  many  things  to  tell  the  nation.  And  he 
wanted  a sufficiency.  He  must  be  able  to  take  stalls  at  the  Russian 
Ballet  wheneve  he  wished  — and  entertain  the  dancers,  if  that 
struck  his  fancy.  He  must  be  able  to  buy  his  friends’  pictures  - - 
and  pay  them  handsomely.  These  other  dealers  in  money 
merely  squandered  their  earnings  on  banal  conventional  luxuries. 
He  must  use  his  brains  to  put  some  of  their  money  into  his  pocket, 
where  it  would  fructify,  not  only  financially,  but  in  supporting 
the  arts,  and  people  who  really  mattered,  and  in  giving  his  own 
powers  scope. 

So  he  went  deeply  in.  By  the  end  of  1924  he  reckoned  that 
the  value  of  his  assets,  a iir  deducting  his  large  overdrafts,  and 
not  counting  pictures  and  books,  was  jCSTJO?-  By  the  beginning 
of  1937  it  was  £506,^50.  He  died  leaving  about  3^450,000,  if  we 

* Mr.  Daniel  Macmillan  recalls  meeting  his  old  friend  m the  street  in  the  autumn 
of  1919  and  telling  him  that  he  was  having  a little  sptculation  by  buying  German 
marks  at  low  prkf  s.  Keynes  warned  him  against  it,  and  Macmillan  took  his  advirc. 
Had  he  not  done  so,  Keynes  could  have  settled  hw  account  on  the  book  by  returning 
Macmillan  his  own  cheque ! • 

» Not  to  be  confused  with  the  firm  offer  by  the  Scandinavian  Bank. 


298  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1920-37 

include  the  value  of  pictures  and  books. 

It  is  proper  to  mention  that  from  time  to  time  rumours  have 
circulated  among  those  who  did  not  know  Keynes  well,  that  he 
made  his  fortune  by  using  inside  information  when  in  the  Treasury . 
Such  rumours  were  especially  apt  to  occur  among  those  who 
disagreed  with  his  opinions  on  political  economy.  They  may  be 
scotched  by  the  facts. 

He  had  no  foot  in  the  Treasury  (or  any  other  official  position) 
between  June  1919  and  July  1940.  The  operations  which  he 
undertook  within  a year  of  leaving  the  Treasury  in  1919  cost  him 
the  whole  of  his  accumulated  savings  to  date  (about  j^Gooo) 
and  the  main  proceeds  of  the  English  sales  of  The  Economic  Come- 
quences  of  the  Peace.  His  speculative  account  opened  on  1 4th  August 
1919,  and  his  fortune  reached  its  peak  in  1937.  To  start  with, 
in  Older  to  sustain  his  operations,  he  put  in  a modest  cover  of 
about  ;^4000  worth  of  securities.  His  firm  requiied  10  pei  cent. 
He  borrowed  small  sums  fiom  certain  members  of  his  family, 
paying  them  a handsome  rate  of  interest  on  the  loans.  He 
ploughed  back  his  quick  profits  and  was  thiis  able  to  pyramid 
his  holdings.  Then  came  the  reverse,  when  he  lost  all  and  went 
outside  for  help.  From  this  time  onwards  his  position  was  built 
up  by  a gradual  pjrocess,  of  which  he  kept  a record. 

We  may  add  that  to  those  who  knew  him  at  all  well  the 
charge  appears  quite  fantastic.  He  was  punctiliously  honourable 
in  all  financial  matters.  Not  only  would  it  have  been  entirely 
inconsistent  with  his  character  to  have  taken  advantage  of  official 
information,  but  he  had  a certain  idiosyncrasy,  well  known  to 
those  who  worked  closely  with  him,  which  made  it  extremely 
distasteful  to  him  to  use  ordinary  inside  business  information 
acquired  in  a straightforward  manner.  This  was  partly  based  on 
intellectual  grounds.  He  believed  that  the  safest  way  to  earn 
was  to  consider  a proposition  in  the  light  of  the  general  economic 
situation  and  his  own  judgment  as  to  how  that  would  develop, 
and  to  back  his  judgment.  He  believed  that  “ inside  information  ” 
more  often  than  not  led  investors  astray.  It  was  a favourite  dictum 
of  his  in  the  ’thirties  that  “ the  dealers  on  Wall  Street  could  make 
huge  fortunes  if  only  they  had  no  inside  information  ” ! 

There  was  also  a moral  side  to  this  idiosyncrasy.  He  too 
had  his  puritan  blood.  Was  there  some  obscure  corner  of  his 
nature  which  evoked  that  sympathy,  which  his  urbane  style 
could  not  altogether  conceal,  for  the  poor  Presbyterian  President 


AST.  37-54]  RECONSTRUCTION  a99 

in  his  difficulties  ? There  seemed  to  him  to  be  something  wnrong 
in  taking  advantage  of  special  knowledge,  even  when  that  know- 
ledge had  been  gained  in  a thoroughly  proper  way  in  the  ordinary 
comse  of  business.  It  was  not  quite  playing  the  game.  The  game 
was  to  pit  one’s  intelligence  against  others  who  had  the  same 
public  information  at  their  disposal,  so  that  the  reward,  when  it 
came,  would  be,  subject  to  the  inevitable  risks,  the  prize  of  superior 
judgment.  These  traits  of  his  character  are  known  to  many,  who 
can  give  the  lie  to  malicious  rumour-mongers. 

It  is  convenient  at  this  point  to  cast  a forward  glance  over  his 
financial  dealings.  He  (ontinued  his  daily  intervention  in  the 
exchange  markets.  Towards  the  end  of  1920  he  began  to  take 
an  interest  in  cotton,  and  at  the  beginning  of  1921  he  opened  an 
account  in  this  commodity  and  dealt  heavily.  Then  his  interests 
broadened,  and  we  find  him  trading  in  lead,  tin,  copper,  spelter, 
rubber,  wheat,  sugar,  linseed  oil  and  jute.  All  this  dealing  was 
based  on  a close  study  of  general  influences  affecting  tlie  world 
markets  in  each  of  the  commodities.  He  maintained  this  active 
inteiest  until  1937,  when  he  fell  ill  and  decided  to  abandon  it ; it 
was  one  of  the  few  sacrifices  which  he  made  to  the  clear  need  for 
conserving  his  eneigies.  During  the  ’twenties  his  personal  opera- 
tions were  highly  speculative,  being  supported  on  narrow  margins 
of  c over. 

He  was  also  interested  in  securities,  and  participated  in  a 
number  of  syndicates.  In  the  ’twenties  he  w'as  very  close  to  Mr. 
Falk,  and  they  often  acted  together  in  a professional  way  as 
occasional  consultants  to  firms.  In  1920  Dcbenham  & Go. 
constituted  an  Economi  Committee,  on  which  he  and  Falk  and 
one  or  two  others  served  for  a period  of  four  years.  In  1921  a 
small  investment  company  was  formed,  consisting  of  Mr.  Falk,  Sir 
Geoffrey  Fry,  Sir  Frank  Nixon,  Mr.  Dudley  Ward,  Mr.  Trouton 
and  Keynes.  The  names  are  familiar ! The  old  “ A ” Division 
of  the  Tieasury  had  come  together  again,  to  pool  their  wisdom, 
and,  to  celebrate  the  fa^'  the  company  was  christened  “ A.D.” 
Somewhat  later  he  and  Falk  took  part  in  the  formation  of 
the  Independent  Investment  Trust,  which  was  on  a somewhat 
larger  scale.  Then,  later  again,  he  participated  in  the  formation 
of  a very  select  company,  called  “ P R.”  (irdvra  pel).  This  was 
a channel  contrived  by  Keynes  to  enable  his  close  friends  to 
increase  their  capital.  It  was,  therefore,  a matter  of  particular 
concern  to  him.  When  the  slump  of  1929-31  came  there  was  a 


[1920-37 


300  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

woeful  depreciation,  and  Keynes  had  some  difference  of  opinion 
with  his  associates.  The  rights  and  wrongs  of  this  do  not  concern 
us,  but  Keynes  felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  have  the  capital 
divided  into  four  parts,  and  by  the  clever  manipulation  of  his 
fourth  he  was  able  to  ensure  that  his  friends  regained  their  capital 
in  full. 

In  the  early  period  he  had  the  idea,  which  was  shared  by 
Mr.  Falk,  that  it  should  be  possible  to  turn  an  economist’s  under- 
standing of  the  vagaries  of  the  business  cycle  to  profitable  account. 
There  should  be  appropriate  movements  between  gilt-edged 
securities  and  equities,  and  between  long-term  and  short-term 
securities.  For  this  purpose  it  was  more  needful  to  study  business 
barometers  than  the  qualities  and  characteristics  of  any  particular 
asset.  It  is  possible  that  his  services  were  sought  partly  because 
he  was  supposed  to  have  special  expertise  in  interpreting  these 
mysteries.  He  hoped  at  one  time  to  assist  the  fortunes  of  King’s 
College  by  applying  such  methods  in  the  investment  of  certain 
funds.  It  is  not  clear  that  this  technique  ever  met  with  great 
success,  save  in  one  respect,  namely,  that  his  confidence  in  the 
early  ’thirties  that  the  rate  of  interest  would  fall  and  Stock 
Exchange  values  be  restored  to  a due  relation  with  the  values 
of  the  physical  assets  which  they  represented,  greatly  assisted  him 
and  all  the  institutions  which  depended  upon  his  advice.  In 
due  course  he  himself  became  sceptical  of  the  piactical  value  of 
business-cycle  theory  for  the  purpose  of  private  gain,  and  con- 
centrated on  the  careful  choice  of  particular  investments,  mainly 
with  a view  to  their  long-term  prospects.  It  is  clear  that  in  the 
early  rapid  build-up  of  his  private  fortune  he  cannot  have 
relied  upon  long-term  considerations  oi  even  upon  business-cycle 
movements ; in  this  case  it  was  quicker  changes  that  he  had  to 
take  into  account ; he  traded  very  actively,  moving  in  and  out 
continually. 

In  the  management  of  his  own  capital  and  in  these  small 
companies,  the  aim  in  early  days  was  to  get  a quick  enlargement 
of  capital,  and  the  method  one  of  extreme  boldness,  decisions  being 
taken  on  an  economic  appraisal  of  the  general  situation.  At  the 
Bursary  of  King’s  College  he  had  to  look  at  matters  very  differently. 
Extremely  long-term  considerations  were  all-important.  He  soon 
acquired  a dominating  influence  over  investment  policy  there, 
becoming  First  Bursar  in  1924. 

In  the  case  of  the  National  Mutual  and  the  Provincial  Insur- 


**t.  37-54]  RECONSTRUCTION  301 

ance  Companies,  he  had  a different  problem  again.  As  with  the 
College,  caution  was  necessary  — he  was  prepared  to  cultivate 
this  virtue  when  dealing  with  money  not  his  own.  But  in  the  case 
of  the  insurance  companies  much  greater  stress  had  to  be  laid 
on  liquidity.  His  success  in  increasing  the  revenues  of  King’s 
was  spectacular,  and  the  insurance  companies  also  prospered.  It 
is  fair  to  add  that  his  own  capital  and  that  of  the  institutions 
whose  investments  he  managed  felt  the  full  brunt  of  the  slump 
of  1929-31.  In  all  cases  there  were  large  advanies  thereafter 
beyond  the  pre-slump  positions. 

Keynes  gave  7calous  and  unremitting  attention  to  these 
investment  problems.  He  had  the  difncull  intellectual  task  of 
keeping  distinct  his  three  strands  of  thought,  that  relating  to  his 
own  affairs,  that  relating  to  the  College,  ind  that  relating  to  the 
insurance  companies.  To  most  men  this  would  seem  well-nigh  im- 
possible, and  there  were  moments  when  even  Keynes  romplained 
that  he  had  set  himself  too  hard  a task.  Yet  we  may  be  sure 
that  basically  this  very  difficulty  kept  his  interest  alive  in  it.  It 
afforded  the  kind  of  intellectual  c onundrum  which  he  thoroughly 
enjoyed.  His  work  was  peifoimed  in  bed  in  the  morning.  I'inan- 
cial  intelligence  came  to  him  from  the  various  brokers  and  he 
assimilated  the  information  provided  by  the  newspapers.  He 
pondered  upon  the  inipluations  of  what  he  leaint  and  made  liis 
decisions.  He  icckoned  that  the  whole  business  took  him  about 
half  an  hour  each  morning. 

From  an  early  date  he  had  laid  stress  on  the  caieful  selection 
of  long-ierm  investments  and  adherence  to  them  through  bad 
times.  This  aspect  bee  .me,  as  time  went  on,  more  important 
in  the  management  of  his  own  mcaiey.  His  position  had  changed 
very  considerably  : he  was  no  longer  a man  trying  to  build  up  a 
capital  out  of  practically  nothing,  but  a man  of  moderate  substance 
who  was  trying  to  increase  it.  This  docs  not  mean  that  in  the 
following  period  his  policy  was  by  any  means  orthodox.  He  was 
prepared  to  lake  consiOi  -ble  risks  by  buying  secuiities  of  low 
market  valuation.  Nor  did  the  policy  of  relying  for  profit  on  one’s 
selection  of  particular  securities  imply  adopting  the  common 
practice  of  looking  for  inside  information.  His  selection  was 
based  on  two  main  considerations,  first,  the  prospects  of  the  busi- 
ness in  the  country  in  question,  having  regard  to  the  general 
economic  circumstances,  and,  secondly,  the  balance-sheet  of  the 
company.  He  laid  great  stress  on  the  latter.  Careful  scrutiny  of 


[1920-37 


302  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

the  balance  sheet  was  more  valuable  than  all  the  inside  informa- 
tion in  the  world.  The  laws  of  arithmetic  were  more  reliable 
than  the  winds  of  rumour.  Having  chosen  his  stocks  carefully, 
he  was  entirely  unwilling  to  be  frightened  out  of  them  by  short- 
term reverses.  Nor  did  he  take  quick  gains.  Having  convinced 
himself  that  the  stock  had  a good  long-term  future,  he  waited 
patiently,  through  ups  and  downs,  for  the  long-term  potential  to 
develop. 

It  is  worth  placing  some  emphasis  on  this  characteristic  of  his 
later  investment  policy,  which  is  well  authenticated,  because  it  is 
at  variance  with  the  commonly  held  view  of  him  that  he  was  an 
inveterate  vacillator.  One  may  beg  to  suggest  that  vacillation 
is  not  in  itself  a virtue  or  vice,  but  only  so  relatively  to  the  matter 
in  hand.  Nothing  is  lost  by  changing  one’s  allegiance  in  the  realm 
of  abstract  doctrine  as  soon  as  one’s  assessment  of  the  weight  of 
argument  changes.  There  is  everything  to  be  said  for  repeated 
changes  of  front  when  coping  with  a changing  situation,  oi  m the 
conduct  of  negotiations,  as  the  strong  and  weak  points  of  the 
opposition  successively  emerge.  In  other  ca^es  it  may  be  vitally 
impoitant  to  abide  by  one’s  original  decision.  Keynes  showed  his 
capacity  for  doing  this  in  his  investment  policy;  some  have  even 
thought  that  he  carried  his  unwillingness  to  change  his  investments 
too  far. 

This  shift  of  emphasis,  which  became  marked  in  the  early 
’thirties,  led  to  some  disagreement  with  Mr.  Falk  m connection 
with  the  Independent  Investment  Trust.  They  did  not  work 
together  in  financial  matters  subsequently,  but  their  personal 
friendship  was*  unimpaired. 

There  may  have  been  a cause,  other  than  the  laiger  size  of 
his  own  capital,  for  the  shift  of  emphasis.  Knowledge  of  his 
character  suggests  this,  and  the  direct  evidence  of  his  associates 
corroborates  it.  His  plans  for  private  gain  — including  therein 
gain  for  the  institutions  with  which  he  was  concerned  — were 
influenced  by  his  abstract  economic  theory.  He  had  been  brought 
up  in  the  traditional  doctrine  that  successful  speculation  benefited 
the  community.  This  was  the  view  of  Marshall  and  of  the  whole 
classical  school.  When  in  his  letter  to  his  mother,  written  in 
1919,1  he  said  that  his  father  would  be  “ shocked  ” by  his  specu- 
lation, this  did  not  refer  to  moral  but  to  prudential  considerations. 
His  father  was  very  strongly  of  the  opinion  that  one  should  play 

» Cf.  p.  288. 


aet.  37-54]  RECONSTRUCTION  303 

for  safety.  As  an  economist,  Keynes  would,  no  doubt,  have 
subscribed  to  the  doctrine  that  wise  speculation  served  a useful 
purpose.  It  tended  to  reduce  market  fluctuations ; it  provided  a 
trustworthy  finger-post  for  producers  and  consumers ; it  enabled 
the  whole  economic  system  to  function  more  smoothly  and  effi- 
ciently. As  regards  the  gains  of  the  successful  speculator,  in  the 
case  of  the  foreign  exchanges,  this  was  solely  at  Jie  expense 
of  the  unsuccessful,  who,  since  he  had  voluntarily  incurred  the 
risk,  had  no  legitimate  hardship  if  the  risk  went  wrong.  In  the 
case  of  commodities,  the  same  aigument  laigcly  applied;  what 
speculator  A gained,  speculatoi  B hiSt,  the  consumer,  however, 
would  find  that  there  WetS  charged  into  the  price  he  had  to  pas  a 
sufficient  addition  to  gi\e  speculators  the  wherewithal  to  pay 
their  staff  expenses  together  with  a prospcc  tivc  average  private  net 
income  not  greater  than  would  afford  a rcasoinhle  leward  for 
their  application  to  this  profession;  the  ordinary  processes  of 
(ompctition  would  prevent  average  rcw»irds  to  speculators  rising 
higher;  and  m effect  the  consumer  would  pay  nothing  at  all, 
because  the  value  of  the  speculator’s  services  in  reducing  the  costs 
of  marketing  would  more  than  compensate  lor  their  rake-off.  If  a 
speculator,  like  Keynes,  had  no  overhead  expenses,  he  was  being 
particularly  helpful  to  the  consumer.  This  was  well-established 
doctrine.  In  the  development  of  his  own  original  theories,  he 
became  more  doublliil  about  the  beneficial  effects  of  short-term 
speculation.  This  would  not  affect  the  value  to  the  community 
of  long-term  sp^^culativc  enterprise. 

Speculators  may  df  no  harm  as  bubbles  on  a steady  stream  of 
enterprise  But  the  po  ition  is  serious  when  enterprise  becomes  the 
bubble  oil  a whii  Ipool  of  speculation  When  the  capital  development 
of  a counti>  becomes  a by-product  of  the  activities  of  a casino,  the 
job  IS  likely  to  be  ill-done  * 

It  is  piobable  that  theie  gradually  settled  upon  him  a reluctance 
to  be  part  of  the  casino.  Indeed  he  argued  with  friends  to  this 
effect.  Thus  the  change  in  his  speculative  habit  was  in  accord 
with  the  change  in  his  economic  doctrine.  He  was  not  inclined 
to  put  maxims  of  private  conduct  and  maxims  of  social  good  into 
two  separate  compartments.  His  whole  life  waj»  bound  up  in 
various  wa^s  with  the  promotion  of  what  he  deemed  to  be  the 

* The  General  Theory  of  Employment,  Interest  and  Mordjy,  p.  159. 


304  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  Imi 

general  good ; he  would  not  have  allowed  his  private  quest  for 
gain  to  be  out  of  harmony. 

3 

His  main  intellectual  task  in  1920  was  the  preparation  of  the 
Treatise  on  Probability  for  the  press.  He  found  some  difficulty  in 
acclimatising  himself  once  more  to  the  complicated  mathematical 
language  of  his  own  devising.  He  had  to  go  over  the  whole  book, 
filling  gaps  and  deciding  points  which  had  still  been  at  issue  in 
the  summer  of  1914.* 

In  the  Easter  Vacation  of  1921  he  took  Mr.  J.  H.  (“Sebastian”) 
Sprott  on  a holiday  to  Algeria  and  Tunisia,  where  they  worked 
together  on  the  index.  Mr.  Sprott  recalls  an  incident  when  a 
street-boy  had  polished  their  shoes.  Keynes  knew  from  his  inner 
consciousness  what  should  be  paid,  but  this  did  not  satisfy  the 
requirements  of  the  natives,  and  stones  were  thrown  at  them  as 
they  proceeded  along  the  stiect.  Sprott  suggested  that  some 
further  emolument  might  end  their  embarrassment,  but  Keynes 
was  firm.  “ I will  not  be  a party  to  debasing  the  currency.”  He 
was  throughout  his  life  careful  about  small  mflney  matters  — but 
Sprott  did  not  realise  what  good  reason  he  had  to  be  at  this 
particular  time. 

As  we  move  Into  that  year,  we  get  the  sense  of  a great 
crowding  of  duties,  a multiplicity  and  variety  of  interests,  which 
was  to  be  a feature  of  his  life  until  he  fell  ill  in  1937.  His  primary 
duties  remained  those  connected  with  his  Fellowship  at  King’s 
College,  where  he  usually  stayed  from  Friday  until  Tuesday. 
There  he  took  pupils,  sometimes  one  by  one,  gave  lectures  and 
held  his  Monday  evening  Club.  His  bursarial  duties  grew  and 
he  soon  became  mainly  responsible  for  the  College’s  investment 
policy.  He  maintained  his  interest  in  the  quest  for  choice  spirits 
in  each  new  generation,  for  young  men  of  intellect  and  sensibility, 
who  would  carry  on  the  traditions  of  his  own  undergraduate 
days.  The  chosen  ones  became  his  friends,  and  he  gave  them  an 
entree  into  Bloomsbury.  At  this  time  these  included  Sebastian 
Sprott,  Alec  Penrose,  Angus  and  Douglas  Davidson.  He  took 
some  interest  also  in  University  affairs  and  testified  to  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  of  which  Mr.  Asquith 
was  the  Chairman.  We  find  him  writing  a letter  to  the  Cambridge 
Review  upholding  the  cause  of  women.=*  He  continued  in  his  editor- 

* Cf.  chap,  iu,  p.  138.  * Cambridge  Review,  25th  February  1921  (vol.  42,  pp.  273-4). 


RECONSTRUCTION 


lET.  37] 


305 


ship  of  the  Economic  Journal^  with  his  wonted  careful  consideration 
of  articles  submitted,  whether  he  accepted  or  rejected  them. 

In  London  he  had  to  think  of  his  own  intricate  speculative 
dealings.  These  were  vital,  the  foundation  of  his  new  way  of  life. 
He  must  not  make  a second  mistake.  His  City  Interests  were 
multiplying.  He  and  Mr.  Falk  were  extending  their  operations 
as  consultants.  He  never  had  any  official  connection  with  Mr. 
Falk’s  firm  of  brokers,  but  he  gave  them  the  benefit  of  his  opinions, 
while  they  stretched  their  facilities  for  dealing  on  his  behalf  to 
the  utmost  limit.  He  was  in  constant  touch  with  them,  and  il  was 
necessary  for  the  success  of  his  own  undertakings  and  for  maintain- 
ing the  high  quality  of  his  advisory  work  that  he  should  follow 
the  financial  situation  closely  from  day  to  day.  He  was  concerned 
with  the  status  of  currencies,  the  prospects  of  t number  of  epm- 
modities  and  the  condition  of  the  Slock  Exchange.  Many  would 
judge  that  his  financial  activities  were  enough  to  al>sorh  all  his 
time. 

He  had  also  to  keej)  a careful  watch  on  questions  of  high 
international  politics.  In  these  years  there  was  a succession  of 
conferences  whidi  produced  constantly  shifting  reparations  pn/- 
posals.  He  had  no  intention  of  letting  The  Economic  Consequences 
of  the  Peace  be  his  last  word,  and  he  decided  that,  as  soon  as 
the  Treatise  on  Probability  was  out  of  the  way,  he  would  write  a new 
book  on  the  reparations  problem.  He  had  a wide  correspondence, 
in  order  to  keey  track  as  far  as  possible  of  the  inner  meaning  of 
successive  proposals.  He  studied  the  politicians  in  the  attempt 
to  plumb  their  motives;  he  must  maintain  the  standaid  of 
psychological  insight  wluch  he  liad  set  himself  in  the  Economic 
Consequences. 

All  this  was  not  only  in  preparation  for  the  next  book.  He  was 
writing  all  the  time  for  the  press,  on  the  alert  for  any  point  which 
he  thought  the  public  should  notice.  Indeed  he  was  developing 
quite  a substantial  journalistic  activity.  In  the  spring  of  1921  he 
contributed  regularly  to  Manchester  Guardian.^ 

Under  the  article  of  27th  April  the  subscript  first  appeared 
which  is  so  familiar  to  his  readers  in  later  years : “ Copyright  in 
the  United  States  and  translation  rights  reserved  by  the  author  ”. 
Attempts  to  place  some  of  these  articles  in  the  United  States  and 
elsewhere  had  been  frustrated  by  the  widespread  quotation  of 


* See  especially  1921  — ist  I’Vbruary,  5th  Mjicli,  24th  March,  271I1  April,  6th 
May,  13th  May. 


X 


3o6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1921 

extracts  from  the  Manchester  Guardian  articles  in  foreign  news- 
papers. He  began  to  make  it  a habit,  when  he  contributed  an 
important  article  to  the  British  press,  to  write  round  to  half  a 
dozen  newspapers  in  various  foreign  countries  offering  it.  He 
charged  stiff  prices,  and  his  journalistic  income  was  not  inconsider- 
able. In  the  summer,  seeking  to  vary  his  audience,  he  placed  five 
four-columned  articles  in  the  Sunday  Times.  Meanwhile  he  was 
discussing  a larger  project  with  the  Manchester  Guardian.  The  plan 
was  to  issue  a series  of  weighty  supplements  on  European  Re- 
construction, with  articles  by  the  most  distinguished  authorities 
in  each  country,  under  Keynes’  general  editorship.  During 
the  autumn  he  was  busy  with  preparations  for  this  publication. 
He  had  time  for  various  bits  of  voluntary  work  in  good  causes.  He 
was  a member  of  the  Liberal  Committee  on  Industrial  Policy  — 
rejecting,  however,  the  idea  that  he  should  become  a parliament- 
ary candidate.  He  was  thanked  by  Lord  Robeit  Cecil  for  his 
work  on  the  Disarmament  Committee  of  the  Ixcigue  of  Nations 
Union. 

All  this  many-sided  activity  did  not  leaci  him  to  neglect  his 
old  Bloomsbury  friends.  On  the  contrary,  4b  Gordon  Square 
was  a great  centre  for  parties  and  charades,  or  for  pleasant  intimate 
meetings  and  good  talk.  Bloomsbury  had  some  revival  after  the 
dreary  days  of  war.  Lytton  Strachey  occasionally  appeared  from 
the  country.  There  were  the  younger  people  coming  into  the 
circle.  The  work  of  members  of  the  group  was  beginning  to 
receive  a wider  recognition.  Their  ideas  were  assimilated  by  a 
larger  number.  There  was  a certain  post-war  excitement  and 
effervescence.  Keynes  was  quite  at  the  centre  of  things  in  this 
period.  lie  cast  aside  his  public  and  financial  preoccupations 
and  sank  himself  in  the  old  atmosphere,  the  talk  about  life  and 
art,  the  gossip  about  friends.  There  was  not  any  great  change 
from  pre-war  days.  Their  habits  of  mind  were  too  deeply  en- 
grained. The  critical,  amusing  commentary  on  men  and  things 
proceeded.  The  curious  idiosyncrasy  of  the  group,  the  strong 
flavour,  persisted. 

An  event  occurred  at  this  time  which  did  much  to  enhance 
Keynes’  reputation  and  instil  a proper  respect  into  his  critics. 
On  rst  May  r92r  the  Reparations  Commission,  in  accordance 
with  its  instructions,  published  its  assessment  of  the  total  liability 
of  Germany  under  the  Treaty.  In  his  book  Keynes  had  reckoned 
that  this  would  be  million ; he  had  rounded  it  up  to  ^{^8000 


AET.  37l 


RECONSTRUCTION 


307 

million  in  order  to  be  on  the  safe  side,  since  all  the  world  seemed 
to  be  giving  higher  figures,  and  added  a footnote  prophesying  that 
the  result  would  lie  between  £6400  million  and  ;(^8ooo  million. 
The  figure  provided  by  the  Reparations  Commission  was  £68^0 
million.^  Thus,  his  judgment  was  vindicated  and,  contrary  to  the 
expectation  of  his  ciitics,  his  figure  was  found  to  err  on  the  high 
side.  He  wrote  a letter  to  The  Time^  at  once,  in  wnich  he  was 
able  to  cite  other  instances  where  his  predictions  were  fulfilled 
by  the  Report  of  the  Rcpaiatiiins  Commission  with  lemarkable 
accuracy.^  What  the  critics  had  failed  to  appieciatc  was  that 
it  was  Keynes  alone  (and  other  Biitish  I’leasury  officials  who 
silently  agreed  with  him)  who  had  done  the  leal  work,  and  that 
the  other  experts  had  been  lazily  contenting  themselves  with 
dogmatic  guesses.  He  politely  suggested  that,  in  view  of  this 
result,  hi>,  critics  might  pau.e  to  reflect  that  his  estimate  of  Ger- 
man\’s  capacity  to  pay  was  also  worthy  of  consideration. 

In  September  thicc  difleient  newspapers  to  which  Keynes 
had  contiibuted,  the  Mamkesht  Ciimdian,  the  .Yw  }o?k  World  dind 
the  Baltimore  Sun,  h«id  the  ^ame  bright  idea.  Keynes  should  be 
their  special  1 epreseiUatis  e at  the  Disarmament  Conference,  to 
be  held  at  Washington.  Although  he  was  rather  tempted — it 
would  be  pleasant  to  ic\isit  the  United  State's  he  rejected  the 
proposal.  The  Conference  was  likelv  to  be  mainly  concerned 
with  naval  matters,  on  which  he  was  not  an  expert.  He  wished 
to  confine  hi«  journalistu  output  to  subjects  that  he  followed 
closely  and  nc  . to  liccomc  a ]ouinali’.t  at  large.  There  was  a 
more  specific  reason  for  the  refusal.  The  Government  of  India 
had  invited  him  to  bet  o ’c  Yice-Chairman  of  a Fisc  al  Commission. 
He  welcomed  this  icviv.l  ol  his  connection  with  Indian  problems. 
He  would  have  to  fit  m a visit  to  India,  and  this  ceitainly  pre- 
cluded his  going  to  ^Vashington  also.  In  writing  to  Scott,  editor 
ol  the  MancheUcr  (ruaulian,  with  reference  to  the  Washington 
proposal,  he  pleaded  his  Indian  commitment : “ The  Commission 
will,  I think,  represent  1 ^ast  effort,  almost  ceitainly  doomed  to 
futility,  to  save  India  for  modific‘d  Free  Trade.  But,  though 
there  is  little  hope  of  success,  I expect  you  will  agree  that  it  is  an 
enterprise  which  is  worth  while.”  ^ Thus  Washington  had  to 
give  wav  to  India.  But  the  Indian  visit  did  not  come  off  either. 

On  26th  May  1921  Diaghilev  opened  a new  season  in  London. 

1 Vi/  (millions)  + the  (millions)  included  in  Keynes’  estimate  foi 

ledempiion  of  Allied  loans  to  Belgium  , 

2 The  Times,  2nd  Ma>  1921  ^ 14th  September  1921 


3o8  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1922 

It  was  marked  by  an  event  of  considerable  interest,  the  return  to 
the  company  of  Lydia  Lopokova.  Once  again  she  did  the 
Can-can  Dancer  in  the  Boutique^  and  she  had  the  leading  part  in 
Les  Sylphides.  Once  again  she  had  tremendous  ovations  from  the 
London  audiences.  For  that  autumn  Diaghilev  was  planning 
something  new,  a production  which  some  held  to  be  the  finest 
of  all  those  he  staged  in  London,  The  Sleeping  Princess,  Tchaikovsky 
and  Bakst,  Spessiva  and  Lopokova  would  their  mixed  power 
employ  to  enchant  and  captivate  the  spectators.  The  first  per- 
formance on  2nd  November  had  the  same  kind  of  rapturous 
reception  that  had  greeted  the  Bouhque  Fantasque  two  years  before. 
But  this  time  it  was  the  seduction  of  pure  loveliness.  The  part  of 
the  Princess  was  taken  by  Spessiva,  great  classical  ballerina,  while 
Lopokova  danced  the  Lilac  Fairy  with  all  hei  sweet  impulsiveness. 
Keynes  went  often. 

In  order  to  titillate  his  audience  and  maintain  an  excited 
interest,  Diaghilev  had  the  pleasant  idea  of  varying  the  parts, 
and  on  certain  nights  Lopokova  danced  the  Princess  herself. 
Keynes  made  sure  that  he  would  sec  her  thus.^  He  was  spell- 
bound by  this  Princess,  so  light  and  quick,  so  charming  and 
piquante,  so  coy  and  unexpected.  As  he  watched,  his  whole 
being  was  filled,  with  ioy  and  exhilaration. 

How  he  adored  the  Ballet ! What  a great  man  Diaghilev  was  ! 
As  these  formulae  came  into  his  mind,  he  lealised  how  utterly 
inadequate  they  were  to  describe  what  he  now  felt.  Far  away 
in  some  distant  recess  of  his  being  a little  idea  took  shape,  which, 
travelling  with  the  speed  of  light,  gamed  possession  of  his  whole 
mind  and  heart.  This  was  a thought,  new  and  strange,  crisp  and 
bold,  daring.  . . . Where  would  it  lead  him  ? He  was  daring  by 
nature.  It  seemed  hardly  possible  that  it  could  lead  to  a good 
result.  He  was  a contriver  by  nature  too.  His  life  was  exciting 
and  full,  with  all  his  new  and  varied  interests,  but  he  could  see  the 
danger  that,  when  the  novelty  had  worn  off,  he  might  be  sub- 
merged in  a multitude  of  activities  which  were  a weariness  of  the 
flesh.  He  certainly  lacked  something  to  give  personal  significance 
to  his  multitudinous  strivings.  Some  more  vital  motive  was 
needed  than  the  general  good.  This  was  certainly  a very  big  idea. 
It  was  evidently  much  more  important  than  Indian  Free  Trade. 

He  already  knew  Lydia.  Bloomsbury  had  maintained  its 
contacts  with  the  Russian  Ballet.  He  began  to  pay  her  attention. 
She  was  living  at«this  time  at  the  Waldorf  Hotel,  and  he  persuaded 


^*•351  RECONSTRUCTION  309 

her  to  move  to  a flat  at  41  Gordon  Square,  where  she  would  be 
living  below  James  and  Alix  Strachcy  and  within  easy  reach  of 
his  Bloomsbury  fiicnds.  He  also  discovered  that  she  banked  her 
earnings  at  the  hotel.  This  was  far  from  his  idea  of  how  to  make 
the  most  profitable  use  of  one’s  money,  and  he  suggested  that  he 
ntigbt  give  her  some  advice  on  that  topic.  He  would  evidently 
have  to  proceed  wanly,  lor  if  the  idea  was  new  and  strange  to  him, 
how  much  more  so  would  it  be  to  her ! To  ab>indon  Diaghilev 
and  become  the  wife  of  a Cambndge  don ! And  then  theie  would 
be  another  difficulty,  since  she  was  already  married.  She  and  her 
husband  had  parted  and  he  was  now  in  America.  Keynes’  utmost 
powers  of  contrivance  would  be  taxed.  He  had  clearly  a long 
way  to  go  befoit  he  could  achieve  what  he  wished.  He  decided 
to  abandon  the  Indian  project. 


4 

A Revision  of  the  Ticoty,  Keynes’  ‘ccoiid  book  on  the  lepaiations 
problem,  appeared  at  the  beginning  of  1922.  It  has  the  inci«'ve 
and  lively  style  ol  the  earlier  book,  and  makes  excellent  leading. 
But  It  was  more  sliictly  addiessed  to  the  economic  issue  and  could 
not  have  as  wide  a public  as  the  book  which  analysed  the  inner 
motives  ol  Wilson  and  Clemc  net  .au.  Fuitheimoie,  it  lacked  the 
sense  of  impending  doom  lh.it  was  picsent  in  the  earlier  work. 
Revolution  and  disaster  had  not  come  to  Europe.  Her  peoples 
had  been  patient,  as  he  had  admitted  in  the  flionomic  Cons<quencis 
that  they  might  be,  out,  above  all,  despite  fulminations  and 
agitations,  attempts  to  enforce  the  reparations  clauses  of  the 
Treaty  had  not  achieved  sue  cess,  so  that  it  was  natural  that  the 
disasters  had  not  occurred.  "1  he  book  is  full  of  fire  and  epigi  im- 
matic  denunciation  ol  the  ^in  uitou>  and  dishonest  methods  of 
the  politicians.  One  finds  this  kind  of  footnote : “ If  a partisan 
or  a child  wants  a silly  n 1 mful  thing,  it  may  be  better  to  meet  him 
with  a silly  haimless  thing,  than  with  explanations  he  cannot 
understand.  This  is  the  traditional  wisdom  of  statesmen  and 
nurserymaids.” 

The  book  opens  with  a fine  essay  m the  gulf  between  “ inside  ” 
and  “ outside  ” opinion.  This  was  Keynes’  reaction  to  the  criti- 
cism that  came  to  him  from  men  of  better  judgment.  “ Why  make 
such  a fuss  ? No  one  really  intends  to  do  all  thessp  dreadful  things 
that  are  talked  about.”  He  had  for  some  time  been  convinced 


310  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [19^2 

that  this  was  true,  but  the  method  of  procedure  shocked  him. 
This  opening  chapter  retains  topical  relevance  and  poses  a funda- 
mental question  to  the  political  philosopher.  As  the  activity  of 
the  state  increases,  will  nominal  democracy  come  to  partake  less 
and  less  of  the  attiibutcs  of  true  democracy?  Will  the  gulf 
between  what  really  happens  and  what  people  are  told  and  believe 
about  it  ever  widen  ? 

Keynes  proceeded  to  a very  clear  narrative  ol  the  successive 
results  of  the  international  conferences  which  had  been  held  since 
the  Treaty.  It  was  satisfactory  to  have  the  story  told  so  readably. 
He  pointed  out,  without  undue  stress,  the  fulfilment  of  some  ol 
his  predictions.  He  returned  to  the  question  of  the  legality  of  the 
demand  for  reparations  on  account  of  pensions  and  allowances, 
pleading  that  it  had  immediate  practical  relevance.  The  demand 
on  this  count  roughly  trebled  the  reparations  bill ; if  it  were 
removed,  what  Germany  might  lightly  be  deemed  to  owe  under 
the  Treaty  was  not  far  removed  from  what  she  was  able  to  pay. 
Thus  the  excision  of  the  pensions  and  allowances  clause  would 
bring  the  possibility  of  a satisfactory  settlement  into  the  foi  egiound. 
The  opposition  had  had  two  years  in  which  to  clefencl  the  legality 
of  pensions  and  allowances,  and  no  reasonable  defence  liad  been 
forthcoming. 

In  the  original  book  Keynes  had  stressed  the  inability  of  the 
Gei  mans  to  pay  the  ^ums  demanded.  The  moi  e popular  argument 
against  heavy  reparations  was  the  damage  which  British  industrial- 
ists would  suffer  by  competition  if  Germany  was  compelled  to 
have  a large  excess  of  exports.  This  argument  savoured  of  Pro- 
tectionist fallacy ; it  could  not  possibly  do  harm  to  the  economy 
as  a whole  to  be  the  net  recipient  of  something  for  nothing. 
None  the  less,  Keynes  recognised  some  force  in  the  argument. 
The  immediate  effect  of  a large  excess  of  German  exports  would 
clearly  be  detriment2il  to  British  producers  of  similar  commodities. 
As  against  this,  in  the  long  run,  after  a period  in  which  the 
country’s  economy  could  adjust  itself  to  the  new  situation,  there 
would  be  a clear  gain.  In  the  long  run ! That  was  the  hub 
of  the  matter.  If  the  reparations  annuities  continued  in  per- 
petuity, there  would  certainly  be  clear  gain.  But  if  they  were  to 
be  paid  for  a limited  time  only,  then,  after  a period  of  painful 
adjustment  in  our  economy  — during  which  we  made  way  in  our 
foreign  markets  for  the  excess  of  German  goods,  covering  our 
adverse  balance  of  trade  by  payments  from  Germany  — the  repara- 


AEx.  38]  RECONSTRUCTION  311 

tions  annuities  would  come  to  an  end,  and  we  should  have  to 
recapture,  perhaps  with  great  difficulty,  the  markets  which  we 
had  forgone  during  the  interim.  Thus,  on  the  whole,  he  felt 
able  to  claim  support  from  the  arguments  of  those  who  disliked 
intensifying  German  competition. 

Finally,  he  provided  constructive  proposals.  He  wished  to  go 
further  now,  suggesting  that  the  British  Empire  should  forgo 
all  claim  to  share  in  reparations.  At  the  same  time  inter-Allied 
debts  should  be  cancelled.  Let  Germany  pay  what  the  Allies 
were  strictly  entitled  to  demand  under  the  terms  of  the  Armistice 
and  let  the  proceeds  he  divided  between  France  and  Belgium. 
He  pointed  out  that  this  would  gi\e  France  a much  more  favour- 
able settlement  than  she  would  get  under  the  letter  of  the  existing 
law,  and  a fortioii  than  she  would  get  if  attempts  to  enforce  the 
existing  settlement  were  imj)errectly  successlul. 

He  had  been  warned  that  the  American  public  was  in  no  mood 
to  waive  the  American  claim  for  repa)  ment  of  debt. 

In  theii  main  substance,  therefore,  my  suggestions  are  not  novel. 
The  now  familiar  pnjject  of  the  cancellation,  in  part  or  in  their 
entirety,  of  the  Reparation  and  Inter-Allicd  Debts,  is  a large  and 
unavoidable  reatuie  of  tliem.  But  those*  who  arc  not  prepared  for 
these  measures  must  not  pretend  to  a serious  inUTest  in  tlie  Recon- 
struction of  Europe. 

In  so  far  as  such  cancellation  or  alratcmcnt  involves  concessions 
l)y  Great  Bril«iin,  an  Englishman  ran  write  without  errbarrassincnt 
and  with  some  knowledge  c)f  the  tendency  of  popular  opinion  in  his 
own  coiintr)  But  where  concessions  by  the  United  States  are  con- 
cerned he  is  in  mc;re  dilliculty.  'I’he  attitude  of  a section  ol  the 
American  press  furnishes  an  almost  irresistible  temptation  to  deal 
out  the  sort  erf  humbug  (or  discreet  half-truths)  which  are  believed  to 
promote  cordiality  between  nations ; it  is  easy  and  terribly  respect- 
able ; and,  what  is  much  worse,  it  may  even  do  good  where  frankness 
would  do  harm.  I pursue  the  opposite  course,  with  a doubting  and 
uneasy  conscience,  yet  supp(»rtcd  (not  only  in  this  chapter  but 
throughout  my  book)  by  the  hope,  possibly  superstitious,  that  open- 
ness does  good  in  the  Ic>rig  run,  even  when  it  makes  trouble  at  first.* 

In  a later  passage  he  proceeded : 

The  average  American,  I fancy,  would  like  to  see  the  European 
nations  approaching  him  with  a pathetic  light  in  their  eyes  and  thtf 
cash  in  their  hands,  saying,  “ America,  we  owe  to  you  our  liberty 

* A Revision  of  tiie  Treaty,  p.  171.  * 


312  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1^2 

and  our  life ; here  we  bring  what  we  can  in  grateful  thanks,  money 
not  wrung  by  grievous  taxation  from  the  widow  and  orphan,  but 
saved,  the  best  fruits  of  victory,  out  of  the  abolition  of  armaments, 
militarism,  Empire,  and  internal  strife,  made  possible  by  the  help  you 
freely  gave  us.”  And  then  the  average  American  would  reply : 
“ I honour  you  for  your  integrity.  It  is  what  I expected.  But  I did 
not  enter  the  war  for  profit  or  to  invest  my  money  well.  I have  had 
my  reward  in  the  words  you  have  just  uttered.  The  loans  are  for- 
given. Return  to  your  homes  and  use  the  resources  I release  to  uplift 
the  poor  and  the  unfortunate.”  And  it  would  be  an  essential  part  of 
the  little  scene  that  his  reply  should  come  as  a complete  and  over- 
whelming surprise. 

Alas  for  the  wickedness  of  the  world  ! It  is  not  in  international 
affairs  that  we  can  secure  the  sentimental  satisfactions  which  we  all 
love.  For  only  individuals  are  good,  and  all  nations  are  dishonour- 
able, cruel,  and  designing.’^ 

Professor  Allyn  Young  reviewed  the  book,  and  in  a letter  to 
Keynes  confirmed  the  view  set  out  above  ^ that  the  arguments 
of  the  Economic  Consequences  were  not  responsible  for  the  American 
rejeition  of  the  Treaty. 


Allyn  A,  Tomsi  lo  J,  M,  Keynes^  yth  Februmy  ig22 

The  diffeicnce  between  your  position  and  mine  is  obvious.  In 
England  the  practical  proldem  was  merely  the  revision  of  a Treaty 
which  had  already  been  accepted.  Here  the  issue  was  whether  the 
Treaty  should  be  accepted  or  rejected.  I believed,  and  slill  believe, 
that  America  should  have  accepted  the  Treaty  and  then  should  have 
done  all  that  it  could  to  secure  its  revision.  We  rejected  on  un- 
worthy grounds;  not  on yovr  grounds  [italics  minej.  Support  of  the 
Treaty  means  one  thing  in  England,  another  thing  in  the  United 
States. 

During  1922  the  great  Maruhester  Guardian  Supplements,  twelve 
in  number,  were  the  main  vehicle  for  the  expression  of  Keynes’ 
views.  They  were  entitled  Reconstiuction  in  Europe  and  covered 
the  whole  field  of  finance,  industry,  trade  and  labour.  Some  of 
the  issues  were  general,  some  specialised  on  some  such  topic  as 
shipping  or  oil.  To  almost  all  Keynes  contributed  an  introductory 
article,  which  summarised  the  subject  and  usually  had  some 
interesting  ideas.  In  some  issues  he  had  two  or  three  articles. 

* A Revindn  of  the  Treaty^  p.  183. 


Chapter  vii,  p.  282. 


RECONSTRUCTION 


AET.  38] 


In  the  first  he  had  three  articles  of  major  importance,  and  his 
Other  contribution  in  chief  occurred  in  the  eleventh  issue. 

In  the  first  issue  there  was  a lengthy  article  on  The  Theory 
of  Purchasing  Power  Parity,’*  and  another  one  on  “ Forward 
Exchanges,”  which  give  a full  account  of  the  theory,  which  he 
subsequently  summarised  in  his  Tract  on  Monetary  Reform.  The 
leading  article  comprised  proposals  for  dealing  with  the  existing 
situation.  He  was  tending  now  to  shift  his  interest  from  the 
reparations  problem  pro])er;  he  had  converted  the  world,  and 
it  was  only  a question  of  time  before  his  ideas  were  put  into  effect. 
He  turned  his  attention  to  the  crumbling  exchanges  and  bank- 
rupt finances  of  the  European  countries.  Stabilisation  of  the 
currency  should  now  be  put  in  the  ff)rcfront.  He  was  in  favour 
of  a return  to  the  Gold  Standard,  but  not  to  a gold  circulation. 
For  the  former  he  assumed  that  there  would  be  general  agreement. 
The  vital  issue  was  between  a return  to  the  old  gold  parities  on 
the  one  hand,  and  all-round  devaluation  on  the  other.  He 
strongly  favoured  devaluation.  He  considered  the  argument  that 
it  would  enhance  prestige  for  a country's  currency  to  return  to 
the  pre-war  gold  value. 

WhcTC  a country  can  ic.isonably  hope  to  lestore  its  pre-war  gold 
parity  soon,  it  is  important.  This  might  be  said  of  Great  Britain, 
Holland,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  and  Spain,  but  of  no  oilier  European 
country.  With  the  bankeis  of  the  city  of  London  this  argument,  or 
rather  this  sentiment,  is  likely  to  weigh  so  heavily,  even  so  much  more 
heavily  than  it  ought,  that  it  \vill  almost  certainly  prevail  to  the 
extent  of  giving  the  Bank  of  England  at  least  a year’s  gi  ace  in  which 
to  try  the  policy  of  restoration.  But  if  suci  ess  is  not  attained  within  a 
year  from  now,  argur«ents  to  the  contrary  may  obtain  a hearing.  In 
the  case  of  those  cou.  tries,  hov^evei,  w^hcTC  the  present  exchange  is 
very  remote  from  its  pre-war  parity,  this  argument  has  little  weight. 


He  proceeded  to  demolish  the  other  arguments  for  a restoration 
of  pre-war  values. 

He  delivered  a homily  on  lines  that  had  long  been  familiar 
in  Britain  but  were  nc/t  so  familiar  abroad,  that,  to  support  the 
stabilisation,  countries  must  be  prepared  to  use  all  the  gold  they 
had.  A reserve  was  meant  to  be  used.  This  was  the  doctrine 
which  had  established  the  financial  supremacy  of  Britain,  and 
Keynes  continued  to  uphold  it,  as  he  had  in  1914.  He  did  not 
think  that  additional  support  for  stabilisation  would  be  needed, 
but,  further  to  underpin  it,  he  proposed  that  the'Fedcral  Reserve 


314  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1922 

Board  might  agree  to  make  temporary  loans  at  the  penal  rate 
of  10  per  cent  to  an  aggregate  maximum  of  $500  million.  The 
interest  would  be  paid  into  a guarantee  fund  and  all  participating 
central  banks  would  guarantee  the  Federal  Reserve  Board  against 
ultimate  loss.  “ I do  not  think  that  such  a plan  would  be  contrary 
to  the  interests  of  the  federal  Reserve  Board  or  disagreeable  to 
them,  and  they  might  find  that  on  close  analysis  it  presented  more 
sound  features  than  met  the  eve  immediately.” 

In  the  eleventh  issue,  which  appeared  eight  months  later,  his 
tone  had  become  more  vehement  He  made  a frontal  attack 
on  deflation  The  magnitude  of  the  internal  debt  of  most 
European  countries  was  the  mam  reason  why  it  was  impossible 
to  restore  the  value  ol  the  11  currenc  les  to  their  for  mer  level  But 
this  was  not  the  only  reason.  Deflation  would  cause  business 
depression  and  unemployment  He  cited  an  aiticle  bv  Prolessor 
Irving  Iisher  m the  same  issue  “ written  with  overwhelming 
force  and  lucidity  ” This  aiticle  by  Keynes  was  his  first  to  sound 
a clear  warning  against  the  evils  of  defl  ition  and  may  thcrdoie 
be  regal ded  as  the  preface  to  the  work  which  was  to  absorb  his 
interests  lor  the  next  fifteen  years  and  to  lead  him  far  from  his 
original  staitmg-point  In  the  I (onomic  ( oiS(qiuncts  he  had 
exposed  the  evils  of  inflation  with  consummate  brilliance , but  it 
was  deflation  that  was  to  prove  the  mam  target  of  his  attacks  in 
future.  I therefore  c^uote  a pissage,  m which  he  cites  the  policy 
of  Czechoslovakia  as  *in  illustration 

Comparatively  flee  from  the  burden  of  mleriial  debt,  ind  free 
also  fiom  any  appreciible  budget uv  deficit,  Czechoslovakia  has 
been  able,  in  pin  suance  of  the  policy  of  her  1 in  mcc  Mmistei , Di 
Alois  Rasin,  to  emplov  the  proceeds  of  cei  t iin  loans  whic  h he  1 credit 
enablenl  her  to  raise  in  London  and  New  \ork,  to  impiove  the 
exchange  value  of  the  Czech  crown  to  about  double  the  level  which 
seemed  to  me  eight  months  igo,  with  icKicnce  to  the  circumstances 
existing  at  that  time,  a rate  at  which  she  could  hope  to  stabilise  the 
crown  with  advantage  to  herself  Owing  to  the  rapidity  with  which 
under  the  above  fwouiable  conditions  it  ha^  been  possible  to  effect 
the  improvement,  the  country  has  not  suffered  as  severely  as  she 
would,  if  the  change  had  been  slower  and  more  prolonged  But  it 
has  cost  her  an  mdustiial  crisis  and  serious  unemployment  To  what 
purpose  ^ I do  not  know.  Even  now  the  Czech  crown  is  only  worth 
a sixth  of  Its  pre-war  parity , and  it  remains  unstabihsed,  fluttering 
before  the  breath  of  the  seasons  and  the  wind  of  politics  Is,  there- 
fore, the  proceSs  of  appreciation  to  continue  indefinitely^  If  not, 


akt*  39]  RECONSTRUCTION  315 

when  and  at  what  point  is  stabilisation  to  be  effected?  Mean- 
while the  foreign  resources,  which  might  have  been  employed  during 
the  past  six  months  to  secure  a definite  stabilisation,  are  no  longer 
intact,  and  it  will  not  pro\’e  easy  to  replenish  them.  Czechoslovakia 
was  belter  placed  than  any  country  in  Europe  to  establish  her 
economic  life  on  the  basis  of  a sound  and  fixed  currency.  Her 
finances  were  in  equilibiium,  her  credit  good,  her  fi)reigii  resources 
adequate,  and  no  one  could  have  blamed  her  for  devaluating  the 
crown,  ruined  by  no  fault  of  hers  and  inliented  from  the  Habsburg 
Empire.  Pursuing  a misguided  policy  in  a spiiit  of  stern  virtue,  she 
preferred  the  stagnation  of  her  industries  and  a still  fluctuating 
standard. 

The  Suppleiiiejits,  which  ran  to  810  large  ihrcc-columned 
pages,  contained  expert  information  upon  the  whole  field  of 
economics.  These  were  also  published  in  French  and  German. 
Authors  from  many  countries  were  brought  into  service  and  there 
were  more  foreign  contributors  llian  British.  Keynes  certainly 
laboured  hard  to  attract  <iuthoiitati\e  writers,  and  1 confess  to 
finding  fascination  in  the  galaxy  which  appears  in  the  list  which 
I append  in  a footnote.  This  only  constitutes  about  a third  of 
all  contributors,  and  1 have  no  doubt  that  many  of  the  foreign 
names  which  I have  omitted  were  as  illustrious  in  their  own 
countries  as  the  British  names  were  in  ours.* 

Journalism  was  exerting  a strong  pull  at  this  time.  The  third 
Supplement  included  treatment  of  the  International  Conference 
held  at  Genoa  in  April.  The  idea  came  forward  that  he  should 
himself  go  to  Genoa  and,  in  addition  to  his  contiibiition  to  the 
Supplement,  write  ele\cn  major  articles  for  the  daily  Manchester 
Guardian,  The  idea  appealed  to  him.  There  was  an  arrangement 
with  the  Daily  Exfness  to  publish  some  of  this  matter.  He  then 
approached,  either  by  a direct  letter  or  through  an  agency, 
numeious  newspapers  throughout  the  world.  He  had  refusals, 

* Asquith,  Ramsay  MacDonald,  Pliilip  Snowden,  Robert  Cecil,  Caillaux,  Pain- 
Iev6,  Leon  Blum,  Henot,  Nitti,  Bent  5,  Melchior,  Dr.  Schacht,  Sidney  Webb,  Walter 
Lippmann,  Tawncy,  Maxim  rky,  Albert  Thomas,  Custav  Cassel,  Croce,  Ferrero, 
Rist,  Gompers,  Norman  Angcll,  Henri  Baibusse,  liOwcs  Dickinson,  Pigou,  D.  H. 
Robertson,  Stamp,  J.  H.  Clapham,  L.  B Namier,  Joseph  Kitrhin,  Moritz  Bonn, 
Schumacher,  Andread^,  Linaudi,  Paul  Cravath,  Bam\ille,  Dc  Jouvcnel,  Charles 
Hobhousc,  Arthur  Greenwood,  Walter  Layton,  W.  L.  Hit  hens,  Henry  Clay,  John 
Hilton,  Henry  Bell,  Buckmaster,  J.  ].  Mallon,  R.  Hilferdmg,  R.  C.  Leffingwell,  O,  N.^ 
W.  Sprague,  Paul  Warburg,  J.  H Williams,  living  Fisher,  Piero  Sraffa,  the  Queen  of 
Rumania,  Georges  Duhamel,  H.  N.  Biailsford,  G.  D.  H.  Cole,  H.  Laski,  T.  E.  Gregory, 
Parker  Willis,  Isserlis.  In  conclusion  we  may  mention  members  of  “ \ ” Division  — 
O.  T.  Falk,  Dudley  Ward. 


3i6  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

but  was  persistent,  and  finally  got  an  arrangement  with  the  New 
York  World  and  with  papers  in  France,  Italy,  Spain,  Germany, 
Austria,  Czechoslovakia,  Holland  and  Sweden.  The  Manchester 
Guardian  paid  him  ;^300,  the  New  York  World  £350,  and  the  other 
papers  sums  varying  from  ;^ioo  to  £2^.  He  stayed  in  Genoa  for 
three  weeks  and  wrote  his  contracted  eleven  articles.  When  the 
Gonlerence  bade  fair  to  last  considerably  longer,  he  ruthlessly 
returned  to  Cambridge.  It  must  have  been  a curious  experience, 
having  represented  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  at  Paris  — 
and  he  was  destined  to  represent  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
many  years  later  at  another  great  international  conference  — to 
move  about  among  familiar  faces  at  Genoa  in  the  capacity  of 
newspaper  man.  He  did  not  disdain  the  humbler  role.  He  was 
assisting  his  account  with  his  brokers,  while  his  great  series  of 
articles  in  the  Manchesiei  Guardian^  written  with  full  knowledge 
of  what  was  proceeding,  made  an  important  contribution  to 
the  formation  of  opinion.  He  was  invited  by  members  of  the 
British  Delegation  to  attend  some  of  their  unofficial  meetings 
after  dinner  and  joined  in  their  discussions.  He  look  Mr.  Haslain 
with  him  * as  his  personal  assistant  and,  as  secretary,  Mr. 
Buttress,  who  had  a long  career  of  service  with  him  in  King’s 
College  Bursary  and  as  Assistant  Secretary  to  the  Royal  Economic 
Society.  It  was  Mr.  Buttress’s  first  visit  to  the  Continent.  They 
all  stayed  at  Santa  Margheiita  and  in  the  evenings  usually  went 
to  the  Casino  at  Rapallo.  Keynes  himself  was  no  longer  so  much 
tempted  by  the  gaming  tables  as  in  former  times  ; he  had  bigger 
fish  to  fry  now. 

Later  in  the  year  he  went  abroad  again.  He  received  an 
invitation  over  the  signature  of  a number  of  distinguished  Germans 
to  the  “ Overseas  Week  ” (17th  to  27th  August),  an  international 
gathering  at  Hamburg,  to  discuss  the  economic  situation.  He 
attended  the  Conference  and  gave  a public  address  at  the  final 
meeting.  He  propounded  a new  reparations  scheme  by  which 
the  obligation  to  pay,  which  was  now  pressing  so  heavily  upon  the 
German  mark,  should  be  postponed  to  1930,  but  an  inducement 
to  pay  earlier,  namely  6 per  cent  compound  interest,  should  be 
offered.  He  laid  great  stress  on  the  need  for  Germany  to  set  her 
own  house  in  order  and  check  inflation.  She  should  be  given  a 
respite  in  order  to  do  this.  The  Hamburg  Correspondent  of  the 
Manchester  Guardian  reported  this  as  follows : 

* Cf  p 294 


a»t.39]  reconstruction  3x7 

The  brilliant  contribution  znade  by  Mr.  Keynes,  in  giving  his 
personal  view  of  a sensible  settlement  of  the  reparation  problem,  was 
very  warmly  greeted.  The  Hamburg  merchants,  the  descendants  of 
men  who  for  centuries  have  had  intimate  relations  with  England,  did 
not  regard  Keynes  as  coming  in  the  capacity  of  a friend  of  Germany, 
What  they  were  prepared  to  value  in  the  Englishman  was  his  tradi- 
tional business  fairness.  All  the  greatei  was  the  impression  created 
by  his  address,  and  paiticularly  his  waining  to  pvoid  political 
Jeremiads  and  to  woik  out  practical  and  tangible  proposals.  For 
Germany  has  nothing  to  gain  by  a continuation  of  the  moibid, 
spurious  boom,  with  a continually  sinking  mark  i 

The  Daily  Telegiaph  observed  that  ‘‘  his  remarks  are  reported  in 
the  German  press  at  a length  and  with  a prominence  which  is 
usually  reseived  for  the  heads  of  governments 

5 

I had  just  finished  my  course  of  studies  at  Oxford  in  classics, 
philosophy  and  history.^  Chiist  Church  deemed  this  a good 
qualification  for  appointment  to  a post  to  teach  economics.  The 
first  Honours  examination  in  Oxford  to  include  economics  as  a 
principal  subject  ^ was  to  be  held  a year  later  (June  1923).  I was 
allowed  two  terms  away,  not  so  much  in  order  that  I should 
learn  economics,  as  that  I should  broaden  my  mind  by  foreign 
travel.  I took  a different  vicw^  I happened  to  discuss  my  affairs 
with  Mr.  Walter  Rune  iman  at  this  junctuie  ; he  advised  me  to  get 
in  touch  with  Keynes  and  offeied  me  a letter  of  introduction. 
Naturally  1 welcomed  the  projiosal. 

I was  bidden  to  lunch  at  46  Gordon  Square.  I mounted  the 
stairs  to  the  drawing-ioom  on  the  first  floor,  where  the  meal  was 
served.^  The  room  itself  made  a strong  impression.  It  seemed 
empty,  devoid  of  the  usual  ornaments  and  appendages,  in  a style 
that  was  rapidly  to  come  into  fashion,  but  was  strange  to  me. 
On  the  walls  were  two  pictures  only,  and  these  were  very  modern, 

> Manchester  Guardian  Comrrercial,  7th  Septtmbcr  192.2 

^ Vi7  Lit,  Hum  and  Model  ti  Histoiy 

3 The  Honour  School  of  Philosophy,  Politics  and  Economics. 

^ Keynes  later  acquired  the  house  next  door,  No.  47,  of  which  he  retained  the  large 
first-floor  drawing-room  for  himself,  letting  out  the  remainder  This  drawing-room 
was  made  accessible  fiom  the  drawing-room  of  No  46  by  a small  interconnecting 
door.  In  his  preface  to  Two  Memoirs,  published  1949,  Mr  David  Garnett  errs  when 
he  asserts  that  Kevnes  constructed  one  large  room  out  of  the  drawmg-rooms  of  the  two 
houses.  The  large  room  which  he  has  in  mind  was  simply  the  double  drawing-room 
of  No.  47.  * 


3i8  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1922 

perhaps  by  Matisse  or  Picasso.  The  armchairs  were  exceedingly 
comfortable.  There  was  nothing  else  except  the  small  table  at 
which  we  were  to  eat.  This  environment,  with  its  assertion  of 
modernity,  itself  provided  a slightly  exciting  background.  Keynes 
came  quickly  across  to  me  and  greeted  the  stranger  with  warmth. 
There  were  two  others  at  lunch,  one  of  whom  was  a young  French 
economist  on  a brief  visit. 

The  talk  began  without  any  pause ; it  was  quick  and  animated. 
Keynes  was  discussing  with  the  Frenchman  the  latest  gossip  about 
Continental  statesmen,  their  mistresses,  their  neuroses,  as  well  as 
their  political  manoeuvres.  These  seemed  as  exciting  as  fiction ; 
I supposed  they  must  be  real.  There  was  financial  talk  of  the 
latest  movements  in  the  exchanges,  budgetary  positions,  the 
international  movement  of  money.  This  was  still  far  beyond  my 
ken.  But  then  certain  more  familiar  strands  began  to  come  into 
the  pattern,  for  the  three  of  them  seemed  able  and  ready  to  relate 
their  items  of  financial  intelligence  to  theoretical  doctrine,  the 
quantity  theory  of  money,  foreign  exchange  equilibrium.  There 
were  passing  references  to  the  latest  ideas  of  Cassel  or  Fisher,  and 
subtle  points  of  criticism  weie  made.  Then  I realised  that  I was 
in  the  presence  of  something  quite  unusual  — this  mixture  of 
expettise  in  the  latest  theories  with  inside  knowledge  of  day-to- 
day  events.  The  Frenchman  must  have  been  in  some  sense 
a disciple  of  Keynes,  for  academic  French  economists  of  that 
day  did  not  normally  move  easily  among  the  latest  ideas  of 
Anglo-Saxon  or  Swedish  theorists.  The  excitement  was  almost 
unbearable. 

Keynes  propounded  the  view,  of  w^hich  Mr.  Colin  Clark  has 
recently  reminded  us,^  that  no  nation  will  endure  paying  more 
than  a given  percentage  of  its  national  income  in  taxation,  and  if  it 
has  to  carry  a greater  load  it  wall  almost  automatically  find 
escape  from  its  plight  by  inflation.  He  ran  over  some  French 
budgetary  figures  and  concluded  by  prophesying  that  the  French 
would  not  stabilise  the  franc  until  it  had  fallen  below  100  to 
the  £.  The  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  He  added  that  he  would  be 
willing  to  stake  his  whole  fortune  on  that  prophecy.  I little 
thought  at  the  time  that  it  was  quite  possible  that  he  was  actually 
doing  so ! 

After  lunch  he  gave  attention  to  the  problems  of  the  stranger. 
He  made  a fond  reference  to  Mr.  Dundas  and  showed,  with  a few 

* Cf.  Economic  Journal^  December  1945,  p.  372. 


AST.  39] 


RECONSTRUCTION 


3*9 

touches,  that  he  knew  something  about  current  Oxford  affairs. 
My  problem  was  simple.  I must  undoubtedly  come  to  Cambridge. 
That  was  the  only  place  where  they  knew  anything  about  eco- 
nomics. The  London  School  of  Economics  — I had  had  some 
talk  with  Professor  Cannan  — was  brushed  aside.  My  College 
was  very  anxious  that  1 should  go  abroad ; was  there  not  some 
foreign  university  ? Certainly  not ; they  knew  nothing  at  all  of 
economics  on  the  Continent.  Were  his  claims  excessive?  His 
whole  exposition  was  so  drenched  in  friendly  feeling  to  myself  that 
it  was  impossible  to  be  critical.  I must  come  to  King’s.  He 
would  see  that  I was  made  a member  of  the  High  Table  and  that 
everything  was  properly  arranged.  He  already  seemed  to  under- 
stand my  sundry  problems  and  diffiiulties  perfectly.  He  had 
taken  charge.  He  would  manage  my  affair^  for  me  and  I was 
ecrtainlv  at  a gieat  loss  at  that  phase  how'  to  man.ige  them  for 
myself. 

It  was  four  months  later  i October  1922)  that  1 found  myself 
among  the  Fellows  of  King's  College,  who  were  assembling  in  the 
Combination  Room  before  dinner'.  Men  of  learning  and  reputa- 
tion came  into  the  room.  Tire  finely  chiselled  feature<J  and  (ligni- 
fied  bend  of  M«rcauLiy  •‘Cemed  to  symbolise  j)rc-eminently  the 
distinguished  and  scholarly  chai'acter  of  those  among  whom  1 
had  come.  Keynes  entered  with  a brisk  step.  This  w<is  the  first 
time  that  some  o(  them  had  seen  him  since  Hamburg.  Old  Dr. 
Mann,  the  nuuh  beloved  organist,  wdio  had  been  a member  of 
High  Table  nuny  years,  went  up  to  him  and,  grasping  his  arm, 
s«aid  quietly,  “ \Vc  are  very  proud  of  you  It  was  characteristic 
that  it  should  be  the  organist  who  gave  this  salutation,  for  the 
extreme  reticence  of  academic  persons  militates  against  warmth 
of  appreciation.  Other  Fellows  contented  themselves  with  ex- 
plaining to  me,  almost  in  a whisper,  that  they  thought  highly  of 
his  economic  work. 

We  proceeded  into  Hall  iu  a dignified  procession.  1 was  all 
agog,  since  it  was  my  first  visit  to  Cambridge,  save  on  a sight- 
seeing trip.  The  procession  came  to  a standstill  before  reaching 
its  destination,  and  a young  man,  his  hair  very  fair,  exquisitely 
dressed  in  a double-breasted  blue  suit  and  red  tie,  stepped  forward 
to  read  grace.  He  paused  a moment,  and  his  poise  seemed  perfect. 
In  Oxford  we  prided  ourselves  on  occasionally  producing  such 
types  of  elegant  youth,  but  tended  to  assume^ that  they  were 
unknown  in  Cambridge.  He  gabbled  through’  the  grace  very 


320  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [xga* 

quickly  in  a manner  that  was  usual  in  Oxford,  and  I was,  therefore, 
rather  surprised  to  hear  Dr.  Clapham,  who  was  next  in  front  of 
me,  murmur,  “ Very  blasphemous,  very  blasphemous  This 
was  Mr.  George  (Dadie)  Rylands,  an  undergraduate  in  his  second 
year.  I discovered  that  Keynes  thought  well  of  him,  but  he  was 
then  mainly  under  the  tutelage  and  influence  of  Mr.  Sheppard. 
He  was  to  be  a figure  of  no  little  importance  in  Keynes’  life. 
Already  showing  promise,  and  clearly  a young  man  of  sensibility 
and  intelligence,  he  was  likely  to  qualify  for  admission  into  the 
circle  of  chosen  friends.  He  was  prominent  in  the  dramatic 
societies.  Later,  when  he  had  become  a Fellow  of  King’s,  he 
continued  to  act,  and  even  to  dance,  upon  the  stage.  This  was 
something  more  than  a mere  hobby.  His  attainments  were  con- 
siderable. It  was  surely  a crowning  glory  for  a Cambridge  don 
to  be  responsible,  as  eventually  he  was,  for  the  producton  of 
John  Gielgud  in  Hamlet  at  a London  theatre.  When  Keynes 
became  concerned  with  the  foundation  of  the  Arts  Theatre  at 
Cambridge,  Mr.  Rylands  was  his  right-hand  man.  He  held 
various  offices  in  the  College,  and,  when  the  Second  World  War 
came,  Keynes  was  able  to  entrust  him  with  the  bursarial  duties, 
the  College  making  him  one  of  the  Bursars  (while  he  continued 
to  serve  as  Steward) ; for,  although  his  subject  was  English 
literature,  and  his  .great  hobby  stagecraft,  he  was  also  a ‘‘  hard- 
headed  Cambridge  man  ”. 

Most  notable  of  the  undergraduates  under  Keynes’  influence 
at  this  time  was  Frank  Ramsey  (see  p.  141  and  Appendix).  He 
was  a Trinity  man,  but  there  was  plenty  of  intercourse  between 
the  two  Colleges  ; his  father  was  a mathematical  tutor  and,  later, 
President  of  Magdalene.^  The  young  Ramsey  was  a man  of 
extreme  brilliance  and  precocity.  Now  in  his  second  year  as  an 
undergraduate,  he  was  already  correcting  the  proofs  of  Bertrand 
Russell’s  introduction  to  the  second  edition  of  Principia  Mathe- 
matica  and  translating  Wittgenstein's  Tractatus  Logico-Philosophicus 
from  the  German.  Keynes  gave  him  encouragement  in  the 
pursuit  of  these  studies  on  the  borderline  between  mathematics 
and  logic,  and  it  was  partly  through  his  influence  that  Ramsey 
was  later  offered  a Fellowship  of  King's  in  mathematics.  He  was 
of  large  build,  his  forehead  was  broad  and  his  face  intellectual, 
but  simply  drawn.  His  character  too  was  simple;  kind  and 

* Not  to  be  confuird  with  Mr.  Ramsay,  who  was  for  part  of  the  same  period  Master 
of  Magdalene.  The  President  was  below  him  in  the  hierarchy. 


abt.39]  reconstruction  3«r 

good-hearted,  natural  and  unaffected,  he  was  not  in  the  least 
degree  spoilt  by  his  precocity  or  the  admiration  of  his  seniors. 
He  had  a beautiful  laugh,  not  loud  or  hearty,  but  sudden,  genuine 
and  convulsive ; it  sounded  as  if  his  huge  frame  was  cracking 
under  the  strain  of  it. 

His  main  interests  were  in  difficult  and  recondite  reaches  of 
logic,  but  he  discussed  philosophy  in  an  extraordinarily  easy 
style.  Subtle  thoughts  were  distilled  into  simple  straightforward 
sentences.  In  an  entirely  effortless  and  almost  gossipy  way  he 
set  out  the  quintessentials  of  a problem.  To  me  he  was  a tremend- 
ous stimulus,  for,  having  studied  philosophy  as  a schoolboy,  I 
had  met  with  much  frustration  and  bitterness  at  Oxford,  where, 
to  my  judgment,  the  true  was  often  reckoned  false  and  conversely, 
(The  character  of  philosophical  teaching  at  Oxford  has  entirely 
changed  since  then.)  To  my  delight,  this  Cambridge  under- 
graduate seemed  to  be  saying  that  my  truths  might  be  true 
after  all,  more  or  less,  and  he  had  a genial  contempt  for  the  doc- 
trines that  had  plagued  me  so  much  at  Oxford  ; but  he  always 
gave  the  warning  that  it  was  necessary  to  understand  mathematical 
logic,  and  he  believed  that,  in  order  to  do  so,  it  was  necessary  to 
have  advanced  some  way  into  mathematics.  Was  I to  trust  this 
consoling  companion?  Yes,  surely,  because  although  he  was 
only  nineteen,  Bertrand  Russell  had  given  him  his  proofs  to  correct, 
and  Keynes  assured  me  that  he  was  as  g(X)d  a philosopher  as 
anyone  living.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Keynes  was  pondering 
on  Ramsey’s  ( rilirisrns  of  his  theory  oi'  Probability,  which,  as  I 
have  recounted  elsewhere,*  he  took  more  seriously  than  any  others. 
Alas,  Ramsey  died  of  jaundice  at  the  age  of  twenty-seven.^ 

Another  philosophical  undergraduate  of  Keynes’  circle  was 
Mr.  Richard  Braithwaite,  a Kiugsman  and  a year  senior  to 
Ramsey.  He  was  temporarily  a little  overshadowed  by  his  pro- 
digious junior.  Keynes  told  me  of  his  high  regard  for  Braith- 
waite’s  abilities ; his  intelleclnal  interests  were  wide  and  active, 
and  in  general  discussions  he  shc/wed  a versatility  and  agility 
which  philosophical  s]»rrialisls  arc  apt  to  lack.  Mr.  Sprott 
f Clare  College)  was  still  up.  debonair,  dashing  and  an  acknow- 
ledged leader.  Adrian  Bishop  (King’s)  was  the  wittiest  and  most 

* See  Appendix. 

* For  an  obituary  notice  by  Keynes,  see  Economic  Journal  and  E^mys  in  Biography. 
Ramsey  published  two  important  articles  cm  economics,  Economic  Joumalf  March  1927 
and  December  1928 ; his  philosophical  papers  were  collected  in  a volume  entitled 
The  Foundations  of  Mathematics. 


Y 


322  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1922 

amusing,  a little  too  flippant,  perhaps,  by  the  severe  Cambridge 
tradition,  a little  Oxford  in  fact,  very  polished  and  mature. 
Mr.  Steven  Runciman,  son  of  Walter  Runciman,  was  a younger 
member  of  the  group ; he  has  since  won  a high  reputation  as  a 
historian. 

These  were  Keynes’  particular  friends  outside  the  ranks  of 
pupils  and  economists.  After  I had  been  in  Cambridge  for  a 
short  time  I expiessed  one  day  my  appreciation  of  the  delightful 
company  which  I had  got  to  know,  and  \entured  to  add  that  I 
would  like  them  to  introduce  me  to  one  or  two  others,  as  I wanted 
to  acquire  an  extensive  knowledge  of  Cambiidge  undergraduate 
life.  The  suggestion  was  not  well  received.  But  there  isn’t 
anyone  else  ”,  they  said.  (It  must  not  be  inferred  that  any  of 
these  men  cairied  this  exclusiveness  into  the  rough  and  tumble 
of  life  — some  of  them  were  men  of  very  broad  sympathies  — 
noi  that  all  of  them  would  even  then  have  been  as  precious  as 
my  interlocutors  on  that  particular  occasion.) 

On  the  words  there  isn’t  anyone  else  ”,  there  flashed  into 
my  mind  Keynes’  dictum  that  there  wasn’t  any  place  but  Cam- 
bridge wheie  one  could  leain  economics.  Iwseemc'd  clear  that 
both  statements  were  manifestations  ol  the  same  strong  tradition, 
which  Keynes  himself  did  something  to  foster.  In  retiospcct  one 
may  trace  a link  with  the  Strachey  ciicle  twenty  years  earliei. 
For  undcrgiaduatcs  there  were  advantages  and  disadv'^antages  in 
this  tradition.  The  chosen  few  could  receive  encouragement 
and  stimulus  from  certain  dons  far  exceeding  what  it  was  possible 
to  mete  out  to  the  whole  undergraduate  body ; they  might  be  in- 
troduced to  Bloomsbury.  I contrasted  their  fivouicd  state  with 
the  arduous  competition  at  Oxford,  where  there  had  been  many, 
perhaps  more,  talented  aspirants  of  literary  bent.  Isolated  dons 
might  give  encouragement,  but  there  was  not  the  same  organised 
support  for  young  men  of  promise.  Was  this  a healthier  con- 
dition ? Or  did  some  of  the  Oxonians,  who  might  have  made  a 
mark,  fall  by  the  wayside  for  lack  of  timely  support  ? A distinction 
must  be  drawn  between  litcratuie  and  politics.  At  Oxford  the 
avenues  for  the  aspiiing  politician  were  probably  wider  than  at 
Cambridge.  Unhappily,  the  ablest  men  after  the  First  World 
War  were  not  attracted  by  politics. 

Keynes’  attitude  to  Cambridge  economics  was  another 
instance  of  this  tradition  of  exclusiveness.  It  had  some  effect  on 
the  progress  of  Economics  in  England  at  this  period.  The  forma- 


AEr  39]  RECONSTRUCTION  323 

tion  of  a coterie  may  be  valuable  to  sustain  the  courage  of  those 
whose  work  is  in  the  realm  of  the  imagination.  Keynes  may  have 
tended  to  apply  a helpful  expedient  in  a sphere  where  it  was 
inappropriate.  He  liked  to  think  of  a small  band  of  economists 
who  would  be  the  pionccis;  the  rest  would  rome  along  in  due 
course.  This  idea,  if  oiil)  it  were  valid,  could  make  possible  an 
economy  of  effoit.  If  one  could  carry  ^^rith  one,  as  well  as  learn 
from,  Dennis  Robertson,  Hubert  Henderson  and  a few  others, 
and,  in  matters  of  high  theory,  Pigoii,  one  could  advance  from 
strength  to  strength,  confident  th^it  the  broad  ranks  of  other 
economists  would  follow.  In  the  sphere  of  applied  economics  the 
counterpart  of  the  ad\ancc  guaid  in  Camhiiclee  might  be  found 
in  London  at  the  Tuesdav  Club.  Blackett,  Talk  and  its  other 
members  would  be  the  speaihead  of  advance.  Foi  pushing  some 
specific  idea  this  method  has  advantages.  But  economics  is 
many-sided.  Keynes’  attitude  may  have  been  ]>artly  responsible 
for  the  growth  of  a gulf  between  the  thinking  in  (Cambridge  and  at 
the  London  School  of  Economics,  whic  h w<is  to  prove  detrimental 
in  the  coming  years.  There  is  also  no  doubt  that  Keynes  made 
enemies  4imong  men  who  had  established  some  reputation  as 
practical  economists  befoie  he  was  even  heard  of,  by  assuming 
that  they  were  not  worth  consideration.  Their  hostility  haci 
ramifying  effects  and  retarded  the  acceptance  of  Keynes’  views. 

We  may  well  think,  when  we  considc^r  the  enormous  range 
of  his  work,  that  the  concentration  of  intellectual  discussion 
among  a chosen  few  was  a nccessaiy  economy.  He  was  doing 
his  best  lor  a larger  audience  by  his  published  work.  He  could 
not  also  give  time  and  vital  energy  to  maintaining  good  rc'lations 
and  entering  intc^  elaborate  discussions  with  all  the  professional 
economists.  It  was  not  so  much  the  practice,  however,  as  its 
elevation  into  a doctrine  which  may  have  clone  harm.  The  other 
economists  would  have  quite  understood  if  Keynes  himself  was 
somewhat  inaccessible,  becctus#'  so  busy.  The  doctrine,  which 
was  not  entirely  secret,  gave  them  the  sense  that  they  had  been 
scorned. 

I took  my  weekly  essays  to  him  alone.  We  sat  in  comfortable 
chairs  in  his  rooms  in  Webb’s  Building.  They  were  elegantly 
furnished,  and  one  long  wall  had  been  adorned,  shortlv^i^r  the 
war,  with  frescoes  of  nude  figures,  flowers  and  fruit  by  Duncan 
Grant  and  Vanessa  Bell.  The  essays  were  on  such  topics  as  rent 
and  quasi-rent  and  covered  the  ground  of  Marshall’s  Principles, 


324  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES 

I recall  an  essay  on  The  Real  Terms  of  International  Inter- 
change Keynes  characteristically  gave  me  for  my  reading  a 
letter  which  he  had  just  received  from  his  colleague  Macaulay, 
whose  subject  was  Mechanics.  The  letter  was  concerned  with 
the  effects  of  an  agreement  with  the  United  States,  should  there 
be  one,  for  paying  off  our  war  debt.  Macaulay  was  asking  Keynes 
to  confirm  his  view  that  the  burden  for  Britain  would  be  consider- 
ably greater  than  that  represented  by  the  annual  payments,  since 
Britain  would  have  to  lower  the  prices  of  her  exports  in  order 
to  generate  a sufficient  export  surplus.  The  letter  was  written 
in  the  language  of  a layman  without  economic  terminology.  I 
fear  that  when  it  came  to  the  essay  Keynes  had  to  point  out 
gently  that  I had  not  yet  caught  up  with  Macaulay  in  economic 
understanding. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Keynes,  who  was  such  a great 
expert  in  the  theory  of  money  and  business  fluctuations,  was  not 
thoroughly  grounded  in  the  traditional  theory  of  value.  My 
recollection  docs  not  confirm  this.  It  appeared  to  me  that  his 
knowledge  of  Marshall  was  very  thorough  and  meticulous.  He 
used  to  take  the  view  at  that  time  that  the  cmitent  of  economic 
theory  was  extremely  small  and,  although  difficult  to  get  right, 
could  be  mastered  by  an  able  man  very  quickly.  He  did  not  think 
that  wide  reading  in  economic  theory  was  necessary.  Following 
Marshall,  he  believed  there  was  not  much  further  woik  to  be 
done  in  that  field,  and  that  progress  in  economics  would  lie  in 
the  application  of  theory  to  practical  problems.  His  recipe  for 
the  young  economist  was  to  know  his  Marshall  thoroughly  and 
read  his  Times  every  day  carefully,  without  bothering  too  much 
about  the  large  mass  of  contemporary  publication  in  book  form. 
He  was  careful  to  add  that  one  must  read  one’s  Pigou  and  any- 
thing that  came  from  the  pens  of  the  chosen  few.  His  own  reading 
after  1914  was  probably  not  much  more  extensive.  He  read  what 
those  near  to  him  said  he  must.  Contributions  to  the  Economic 
Journal  — he  had  to  read  about  a hundred  articles  a vear  — gave 
him  a fair  sample  of  the  refinements  of  contemporary  thinking. 
When  eventually  he  broke  away  from  the  Marshallian  tradition 
and  decided  there  was  something  new  and  important  to  be  said 
about  the  fundamentals  of  theory,  there  were  complaints  in  certain 
quarters  that  his  work  did  not  show  evidence  of  wide  reading  in 
current  periodical  literature.  There  may  have  been  truth  in 
this.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  gain  to  his  thought  from  such 


ABT.  39]  RECONSTRUCTION  31^5 

erudition  would  have  compensated  for  the  reduction  in  his  atten- 
tion to  current  events  that  such  study  must  have  entailed. 

He  lectured  once  a week  on  Money.  There  was  a footnote 
to  the  notice  of  his  lecture,  stating  that  only  those  who  had 
obtained  a first  class  in  Part  I or  were  specially  recommended 
could  come.  Thus  the  class  was  a small  one.  Each  lecture  was 
rigidly  divided  into  two  parts,  the  first  half  dealing  with  theory 
and  the  second  with  current  events.  In  the  first  half  he  was 
expounding  the  Cambridge doctrines  on  money  for  which 
Marshall  was  initially  responsible.  He  wrote  formulae  upon  the 
blackboard  of  the  t)pc  used  by  Pigou  in  his  well-known  article,* 
and  akin  to  those  which  he  was  shortly  to  publish  in  a greatly 
simplified  form  in  his  Tiad  on  Monetary  Reform,  At  this  phase, 
however,  the  formulae  were  more,  not  less,  complicated  than  those 
of  Pigou.  In  the  midst  of  one  lecture,  Frank  Ramsey,  who,  being 
a mathematician,  was  present  by  invitation,  interrupted  with  a 
criticism ; Keynes  was  happy  to  receive  it  and  embodied  an 
amendment.  Then,  when  half  an  hour  was  over,  we  were  plunged 
into  the  story  c^f  whal  had  been  happening  during  the  last  week 
in  the  London  money  market  and  the  foreign  exchange  markets. 
The  account  was  lucid,  but  extremely  technical  and  too  quick 
to  Idc  easy  to  follow.  We  were  greatly  excited. 

In  the  middle  of  this  term  he  w^as  invited  to  Berlin  by  the 
German  Government  to  discuss  measures  for  the  stabilisation  of 
the  mark.  Mr.  Brand,  Gustav  Gassel,  Vissering,  Professor  Jenks 
(^of  Columbia  University)  and  Monsieur  Dubois  were  also  invited. 
The  mark  soared  in  the  foreign  exchanges  on  the  news  of  this 
gathering.  Keynes,  Brand,  Cassel  and  Jenks  published  a majority 
report.  Keynes  gave  an  account  of  the  proceedings  in  the  lecture 
on  the  following  Friday.  He  had  been  deeply  discouraged  by 
the  defeatism  and  apathy  which  he  found  in  Berlin.  It  has  often 
been  said  that  the  Germans  deliberately  destroyed  the  maik  in 
order  to  evade  reparations  payTOents.  If  that  was  so,  they  paid 
a heavy  price,  since,  along  with  the  mark,  they  destroyed  the  whole 
social  fabric.  Keynes  did  not  interpret  events  in  this  way.  There 
had  not  been  any  deliberate  attempt  to  destroy  the  mark.  The 
point  was  that,  owing  to  the  severe  pressure  to  which  Germany 
was  subject,  manful  action  and  a resolute  will  were  needed  to 
save  it  from  destruction.  Such  a resolution  he  had  not  found  in 

^ Quai  in  ly  Journal  of  Economic  ? , 1 9 1 7 i cprinlcd  u\  Es  says  m A^tplied  Economics  under 
the  title  of  “ The  Value  of  Legal  Tender  Money 


326  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1922 

Berlin,  There  they  seemed  desirous  of  doing  the  right  thing,  but 
fearful  of  the  consequences  of  the  drastic  lines  of  action  that  would 
be  needful.  They  were  timid,  weak  and  without  hope.  It  was 
quite  clear  to  him  that  nothing  adequate  would  be  done  and  that 
the  rot  would  continue.  It  did  so  until  complete  destruction 
occurred  a year  later. 

He  also  hinted  that  part  of  the  trouble  was  the  absence  on 
the  continent  of  the  kind  of  economic  analysis  which  he  was  giving 
us  in  these  lectures.  The  quantity  theory  of  money,  suitably 
modified,  must  be  the  main  instrument  for  a diagnosis  of  inflation. 
At  the  root  of  inflation  was  the  budget  deficit.  Not  that  he  agreed 
with  those  in  England  who  thought  it  would  be  a simple  matter 
to  remove  the  German  budget  deficit.  With  galloping  inflation, 
no  lawful  system  of  taxation  would  bring  in  enough  money  to 
do  so,  since  by  the  time  that  taxes  had  been  gathered,  prices  and 
government  expenditure  would  have  s(jarcd  to  new  levels  and 
the  deficit  would  remain.  Somehow  the  price  movement  must 
be  slopped  first.  The  proximate,  as  opposed  to  the  ultimate, 
cause  of  the  price  movement  was  the  collapsing  exchange. 
Rising  prices  in  Gciinany  were  chasing  the  fallmg  exchange  many 
laps  behind.  Therefore,  stabilisation  of  the  exchange  was  the 
first  step.  This  could  onl>  be  achieved  by  a leparations  mora- 
torium. Once  stal?ilisation  was  accomplished,  it  would  become 
technically  possible  to  balance  the  budget.  That  must  be  done. 
If  the  budget  was  not  balanced,  the  stabilisation  would  be 
short-lived.  He  believed  that  with  repaiations  demands  out  of 
the  way  for  the  moment,  the  balance  of  trade  problem  would 
not  be  intractable.  Owing  to  the  rapid  movement  of  the  mark, 
trade  returns  were  chaotic.  Keynes  pointed  out  that  the  actual 
deficit  in  the  preceding  year  could  not  have  exceeded  the  sum- 
total  of  foreign  bull  speculation  in  the  mark;  and  this  could 
not  have  been  very  great.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  English, 
American  and  Swedish  representath  es  agreed  with  Keynes.  The 
report  of  the  minority  (which  would  not  go  the  whole  length 
with  the  majority  on  the  Reparations  moratorium)  stressed 
Germany’s  balance  of  trade  difficulties  and  her  need  for  a foreign 
loan.  For  them,  evidently,  the  trade  disequilibrium  was  central 
to  the  problem,  and  external  assistance  the  only  remedy.  And 
so  it  happened  that  Keynes  and  his  friends  proposed  stiffer 
medicine  for  the  Germans.  If  only  reparations  were  temporarily 
pretermitted,  the  Germans  could  put  their  own  house  in  order. 


AET.  39] 


RECONSTRUCTION 


327 

Let  them  get  the  budget  right,  and  the  balance  of  trade  would 
look  after  itself.  Some  may  think  that  this  has  a moral  for 
Europe  after  World  War  II,  when  the  whole  of  Europe  has 
had  the  kind  of  difficulties  which  weighed  upon  Germany  after 
the  first  war. 

Keynes’  Political  Economy  Club  was  flourishing.  Mr.  Austin 
Robinson,  just  a graduate,  read  a paper  on  Britain’s  Capital 
Exports,  which  was  perhaps  more  intimidating  to  an  Oxford 
man  than  the  many-sided  brilliance  of  the  master.  He  had 
ransacked  all  sources  for  statistical  information.  He  had  con- 
structed most  beautiful  diagrams,  and  discussed  his  results  in  the 
light  of  a refined  theory  of  trade  equilibrium.  It  was  a highly 
polished  performance,  a fine  example  of  Cambridge  thoroughness, 
accuracy  and  theoretical  expeiiise.  At  another  meeting  I read 
a paper  on  a methodological  subject;  this  seemed  safe  for  a 
beginnci  ; my  Oxford  training  enabled  me  at  h^ast  to  discourse 
fluently  on  questions  of  ethics  and  scientific  method.  The 
mischievous  secretary,  however,  allerc'd  rny  title,  when  cir- 
culating the  Club  card,  into  “ Should  Cambridge  economuh  be 
read  at  Oxfoid?  ” We  had  been  discussing  tlie  list  of  prescribed 
text-books  for  the  new  Honours  School  in  Oxford,  whic  h consisted 
of  Adam  Smith,  Ricardo,  List,  Jevons  and  Marx.  There  was 
nothing  more  modern.  This  was  not  the  subjec't  of  my  paper, 
as  I was  quite  sure  that  Marshall,  Pigou  and  Keynes  ought  to 
be  read  in  my  University.  But  Keynes  had  evidently  been  turning 
the  matter  over  in  his  mind,  for  in  his  summing  up  he  reverted 
to  the  question  ol'  Oxford  reading  and,  to  my  surprise,  made  a 
delightful  defence  of  the  Oxford  method.  There,  by  deliberate 
policy  and  in  accordance  with  their  traditions,  they  liked  to  read 
the  great  old  masters  of  ripe  vintiige,  mcll)wed  by  time,  survivors 
of  the  criticism  of  many  generations,  established,  authenticated 
and  indubitably  worthy.  It  was  on  Plato  and  Aristotle  that 
Oxford  concentrated  its  mind.  Their  texts  had  been  pondered 
upon  by  hundreds  of  scholars  and  their  finest  nuances  oi‘  meaning 
analysed.  This  was  the'  right  way  to  introduce  the  young  to 
knowledge.  Let  them  study  texts  of  which  one  knew  that,  whether 
they  were  true  or  false,  they  were  the  product  of  master  minds. 
In  economics  the  next  best  thing  was  to  read  Adam  Smith  and 
Ricardo.  (Marx  might  certainly  be  discarded.)  A hint  could 
be  dropped,  of  course,  that  to  fill  in  gaps  they  should  take  a quick 
look  at  Alfred  Marshall. 


328  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [wa 

He  himself  read  a paper  on  Malthus.  This  was  Malthus  in 
his  aspect  of  population  expert,  the  precursor  of  Darwin,  not  the 
initiator  of  the  doctrine  of  effective  demand ; it  was  a delightful 
character  sketch,  glowing  in  praise ; there  was  a passing  reference 
to  Ricardo  as  “ the  most  distinguished  mind  that  had  found 
economics  worthy  of  its  powers.’’  He  also  dwelt  on  modern 
conditions ; the  Malthusian  devil  was  evidently  still  with  us.  In 
the  discussion  Mr.  Dennis  Robcitson  produced  some  recent 
statistics  ; he  was  not  so  sure  about  the  Malthusian  devil.  Indeed 
he  hinted  that  the  modern  danger  might  be  the  opposite  one,  a 
decline  in  numbers.  Robcitson  seemed  to  know  what  he  was 
talking  about,  and  I had  an  uncomfortable  feeling  that  it  was 
he,  and  not  my  master,  who  was  in  the  right  on  this  occasion. 

Somewhere  on  Keynes’  stair  there  lived  an  undergraduate  of 
sporting  tastes,  whose  name  escapes  me.  On  some  occasion  when 
I was  in  Keynes’  room  he  referred  to  the  young  man  in  an  amused 
way,  since  thuds  and  crashes  were  heard,  suggesting  a fight  and 
furniture  being  hurled  around.  To  m>  sui prise  he  was  a member 
of  the  Political  Economy  Club,  although  his  examination  perform- 
ance was  expec  led  to  be  very  poor ; he  was  the  pupil  of  Keynes, 
who  thought  it  a good  idea  to  mix  a heartv  eh  merit  into  his  high- 
brow group.  In  the  Malthus  paper  there  w«is  a rcfcrenc  e to  con- 
tiaception.  Then,  in  1922,  this  seemed  startling  and  even  shock- 
ing, so  times  have  Changed.  The  heaity  undergraduate  made  a 
forthright  protest ; what  he  had  heard  was  unseemly  and  immoral. 
Keynes  was  delighted  by  this  intervention,  and  his  handling  of  it 
was  one  of  the  most  beautiful  pciformances  I have  ever  seen.  He 
had  a double  objective.  On  the  one  hand,  he  wanted  to  make  it 
absolutely  plain  to  the  group  that  the  objector’s  ciiticism  was 
foolish  and  untcn.iblc  — for  he,  Keynes,  was  a profound  believer 
in  the  need  for  birth  control  in  the  existing  situation.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  was  obviously  most  anxious  not  to  offend  the 
objector’s  susceptibilities  ; the  young  man’s  academic  pretensions 
were  ml,  and  it  was  doubtful  whether  he  would  obtain  his  degree ; 
there  must,  theiefore,  not  be  the  faintest  hint  that  Keynes 
was  taking  advantage  of  his  slow-wittedness  or  scoring  off  him. 
It  was  his  invariable  rule  never  to  be  caustic  at  the  expense  of 
undergraduates. 

He  divided  his  rejoinder  into  two  parts.  First,  there  was  the 
question  of  unseemliness.  Keynes  dealt  with  this  in  a few  gossamer 
phrases ; his  eaey  power  over  words  was  beautifully  displayed ; 


ABT.  39] 


RECONSTRUCTION 


399 

one  felt  a sureness  of  touch  and  refinement  of  feeling.  The 
objector  must  acknowledge,  whether  he  agreed  or  not,  that 
Keynes’  philosophy  paid  due  regard  to  the  claims  of  sexual 
delicacy. 

Then  there  was  the  question  of  immorality.  Keynes  argued 
that  natuial  morals  contained  no  piintiple  whi(  h would  stigmatise 
contraception.  Thcieloie  we  must  look  to  the  morals  of  theology. 
This  question  of  theology  was  impoitant.  Then  suddenly  he 
seemed  to  be  speaking  to  the  undci graduate  directly,  the  room 
having  vanished.  He  looked  at  him,  with  a twuikle  in  his  eye, 
which  appeared  to  plead  with  him.  He  was  talking  to  him  as 
man  to  man.  There  were  a few  words  only.  What  they  seemed 
to  say  was  that  he,  the  undergraduate,  knew  that  Keynes  respected 
his  theological  beliefs  and  also  knew  that  he,  Keynes,  had  no 
theology.  They  were  both  men  of  the  world;  thc\  had  regard 
for  each  othei’s  convictions  and  expejiciue,  thc'V  could  not 
discuss  them  in  the  presence  of  these  people;  it  was  the  sort  of 
thing  that  they  would  like  to  have  a long  talk  about  together. 
There  was  not  the  shadow  of  a hint  that  the  man  Wcas  lacking  in 
intellectual  acumen.  He  was  treated  with  the  greatest  cc)nsidcra- 
tion,  as  an  ecjual.  All  the  same,  the  room  made  up  its  mind  that 
it  need  not  bother  about  this  theological  consideration.  It  was 
all  over  in  4I  minute  or  two,  Init  one  felt  that  in  tho^c  two  minutes 
one  had  had  a vision  of  the  fine  powers  of  this  great  man. 

He  has  been  criticised  for  the  conduit  of  the  Club  on  other 
occasions.  1 did  not  witness  one  of  the  kind  in  question  and  am 
informed  that  outside  visitors  wtic  infrequent.  He  might  have 
a business  man  or  banker  to  give  an  address,  and  demolish  him 
with  his  well-known  jiowci  of  quick  icpaitcc.  Having  dazzled 
him  with  his  supcric..  knowledge,  he  jioc  ceded  to  dissect  the 
substance  of  his  address  and  show  that  it  made  no  sense  at  all. 
There  was  a silent  communication  between  him  and  his  pupils. 
You  see,  now,  what  fiighlful  fools  these  bankers  are,  who  aie 
supposed  to  manage  our  affans.  Enemies  were  made,  and  per- 
haps not  without  jus*  < ause.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Keynes, 
while  having  a warmth  of  kindly  feeling  towards  many  diflercnt 
types,  thought  that  all  was  fair  in  argument,  and  that  a man 
should  not  have  a grievance  if  he  was  refuted  without  mercy ; 
if  he  was  bold  enough  to  advance  an  opinion,  then  he  should  not 
complain  if  he  was  shown  to  be  an  ass.  If  a man  plays  cricket, 
he  has  no  grievance  against  the  bowler  who  gets  him  out  first 


330  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1922 

ball.  If  sensitiveness  was  not  in  place  in  a ^ame,  still  less  was 
it  so  in  the  discussion  of  public  affairs  or  economic  problems. 
If  one  happened  to  be  very  good  at  the  game,  one  did  not  expect 
jealousy  and  rancour. 

To  many  of  his  own  age  he  was  somewhat  awe-inspiring. 
The  fact  remains  that  people  do  not  like  to  be  bowled  out  first 
ball.  Unless  there  was  some  link,  some  prior  reason  for  friendli- 
ness, he  did  not  melt  on  a first  meeting.  In  so  far  as  awe  induced 
shyness  in  his  interlocutor,  that  delayed  the  time  for  warmer 
relations.  With  the  young  friendliness  came  fairly  easily.  I have 
recollections  of  undergraduate  evening  parties  with  perhaps  only 
one  or  two  dons  and  some  former  undergi  aduates  icvisiting.  He 
sat  in  an  arm-chair  with  a glass  in  his  hand ; undergraduates 
were  sitting  on  the  arms  of  the  chair,  chaffing  and  joking ; they 
were  obviously  on  easy  and  intimate  terms  with  him,  treating 
him  as  a friend,  as  one  of  themselves.  He  chattered  away,  having 
plenty  to  say  that  amused  them.  As  I left  the  room  undergradu- 
ates were  still  chiriuping  around  him  — Maynaid  this,  Maynard 
that;  he  had  a hea\y  load  of  woik  the  next  morning,  but  this 
flow  of  intercourse  with  the  young  people  was  more  important, 
and  he  looked  cjuile  prepared  to  outstav  them  all. 


CHAPTER  IX 


RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD 

1 

Hitherto  Keynes’  chief  journalistic  outlet  had  been  in 
the  Manchester  Guardian  and  its  grcjt  Commercial  Supplements. 
In  1923  there  was  to  be  an  important  change.  'Fhen,  and 
in  the  following  years,  those  who  wished  to  learn  his  most  recent 
thoughts  sought  for  them  in  the  Nation^  the  laberal  weekly. 

We  may  remember  his  early  excursions  in  Libeial  politics  as 
an  undergraduate  at  Cambridge  in  the  Union,  as  a speaker  at 
successive  general  elections,  as  a traveller  with  the  Eighty  Club 
in  Ireland,  as  a member  of  the  Liberal  Financial  Policy  Committee 
after  the  war.  By  temperament  and  conviction  he  was  certainly 
a Liberal  throughout  his  life.  During  the  ’twenties  he  hoped  to 
see  a working  agreement  between  the  Liberal  Party  and  the 
Labour  Party ; in  the  ’thirties  he  may  have  nourished  the  hope 
that,  when  he  had  achieved  the  culminating  expression  of  his 
own  views,  the  cogency  of  his  arguments  would  wean  the  Labour 
Party  from  State  Socialism  and  make  its  members  his  own 
disciples.  This  final  c()nsumm£ition  was  not  achieved,  however, 
and  in  the  last  year  of  his  life  he  wiote  to  Lady  Violet  Bonham 
Carter  with  reference  to  the  Liberal  Party  as  follows  : 

I hope  you  aie  fanly  cheeiful  about  electoral  prospects.  All  my 
good  wishes  aie  with  you  and  the  Party.  1 should  view  with  great 
alarm  a substantial  victoiy  by  either  of  the  major  Patties  * 

He  was  rather  strongly  opposed  to  the  Conservative  Party, 
although  he  had  ccrcnin  characteristics  which  normally  incline 
men  to  cast  their  lot  with  the  Conservatives.  He  valued  institu- 
tions which  had  historic  roots  in  the  country;  he  was  a great 
upholder  of  the  virtues  of  the  middle-class  which,  in  his  view, 
had  been  responsible  for  all  the  good  things  that  we  now  enjoy  ;* 
he  believed  in  the  supreme  value  of  intellectual  leadership, 


* i6th  May  1945. 

331 


332  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

in  the  wisdom  of  the  chosen  few ; he  was  interested  in  showing 
how  narrow  was  the  circle  of  kinship  from  which  the  great  British 
leaders  in  statesmanship  and  thinking  had  been  drawn ; ^ and  he 
was  an  intense  lover  of  his  country.  At  times  his  instinctive 
belief  in  the  superiority  of  the  English  made  him  utter  sentiments 
that  seemed  quite  reactionary.  If  he  inveighed  bitterly  against 
his  own  country  in  connection  with  the  Treaty  of  Versailles,  it 
was  partly  because  his  very  patriotism  made  him  feel  intensely 
the  shame  of  what  he  regarded  as  dishonourable  conduct. 

All  this,  however,  was  overborne  by  other  characteristics. 
He  was  keenly  alive  to  great  social  evils  and  sensitive  to  suffering. 
He  was  by  nature  a progressive  and  a reformer.  He  believed 
that  by  thought  and  resolution  things  could  be  made  much  better, 
and  that  quickly.  He  was  intensely  impatient  of  obstruction  in 
every  form.  Again  and  again  he  preached  that  the  tisk  in  taking 
what  seemed  daring  action  was  much  less  than  the  risk  of  doing 
nothing.  The  over-cautious  in  high  places  appeared  to  him  to  be 
perilous  liabilities  to  the  nation. 

In  the  years  that  were  to  follow,  various  troul)les  beset  the 
country  and  he  was  quick  and  fertile  in  the  suggestion  of  remedies. 
He  was  not  author-proud  or  obstinate,  and  was  always  leady  to 
modify  his  proposals  in  the  light  of  valid  objections.  But  as  the 
years  went  on  he  found  on  successive  occasions,  not  valid  objec- 
tions, but  mere  obstructionism  alterhating  with  condescending 
interest  — and  nothing  done  ! The  country  seemed  to  be  sinking 
in  hopeless  inertia  and  complacency;  thus,  naturaUy  enough, 
he  grew  more  and  more  anti-Conservative.  The  only  lemedy 
put  forward  by  the  Consers^ative  Party  was  Protection,  and  that 
he  continued  for  some  time  to  believe  to  be  based  on  a fallacy. 

He  had  derived,  as  we  have  seen,  partly  from  the  gentleness 
of  his  own  nature  and  partly  from  the  philosophy  of  his  dearest 
friends,  a strong  vein  of  pacifism.  In  the  ’twenties  he  was  prepared 
for  Britain  to  go  far  in  the  direction  of  disarmament.  In  this 
field  those  on  the  extreme  left  were  congenial  to  him.  Further- 
more his  hostility  to  the  Conservatives  was  enhanced  by  the 
Treaty  of  Versailles,  of  which  they  were  the  chief  upholders.  His 
bitterness  about  it  was  sharpened  by  his  involuntary  implication 
in  drafting  its  terms.  The  fact  that  he  had  been  a subordinate 
did  not  relieve  his  conscience,  nor  had  his  subsequent  resignation 
completely  assuaged  its  qualms. 

* Cf  Essays  m Biography y pp  79-8 j. 


AET  ^9]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  333 

On  the  other  hand,  he  was  not  a Sociedist.  His  regard  for 
the  middle-class,  for  artists,  scientists  and  brain  workers  of  all 
kinds  made  him  dislike  the  class-conscious  elements  of  Socialism. 
He  had  no  egalitarian  sentiment ; if  he  wanted  to  improve  the 
lot  of  the  poor  and  that  quickly  — and  he  believed  that  far  more 
progress  was  possible  than  was  being  made  — that  was  not  for 
the  sake  of  equality,  but  in  order  to  make  their  lives  happier  and 
better.  In  morals  the  fiist  claim  upon  the  national  dividend  was 
to  furnish  those  few,  who  were  capable  of  “ passionate  percep- 
tion with  the  ingredients  of  what  modern  civilisation  can 
provide  by  way  of  a “ good  life  He  often  explained  that  these 
eould  not  yet  be  provided  Jbr  all  — though  the  dav  when  they 
could  be  might  come  more  quickly  than  some  thought.  1 he  Idea 
of  destroying  anything  good  in  itself  in  the  interest  of  equality  was 
anathema  to  him. 

He  was  not  a great  Iriend  ot  the  profit  motive ; he  iound 
something  unsatisfactory  in  the  quest  im  gain  as  such,  and  came 
to  hope  that  an  economic  system  might  be  evoked  in  which  it 
was  curtailed.  But  be  did  not  think  it  would  be  beneficial  foi 
the  State  to  run  industry  and  trade.  He  consideied  the  doctrine 
of  State  Socialism  to  be  quite  obsolete,  the  reaction  fiom  an  en- 
vironment which  had  now  changc^d  out  ol  lecognition.  'Ihus 
both  in  temperament  and  doctrine  he  was  opposed  to  many 
elements  in  the  Labour  Party. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Liberal  Pait>  did  not  completely 
satisfy  him.  Although  he  woikcd  actively  for  it  horn  time  to 
time,  he  was  by  no  means  a Party  man.  He  held  that  the  prin- 
ciples and  platform  programme  of  the  Taberal  Party  needed 
complete  relurbisliirig  Some  Liberal  causes, — democratic  en- 
franchisement, the  abolition  of  tests,  etc.—  had  triumphed  so 
completely  that  nothing  more  had  to  be  done.  Social  securitv 
also  had  triumphed  m piinciplc,  although  not  yet  fully  in  pr<ic  tice. 
Free  Trade  was  of  the  utmost  importance,  but  in  this  case  the 
battle  was  a defensive  one  and  was  theiefore  not  well  suited  to 
be  the  main  engagement  of  a progressive  party.  How  should 
the  spirit  of  Liberalism  cope  with  the  new  situation  ? How  meet 
the  new  needs  of  the  times  ? Too  many  Liberals  were  ready  to 
pride  themselves  on  pact  achievements  and  to  suppose  that  there 
was  a set  of  Liberal  principles  which  could  readily  be  applied  to 
each  successive  situation  without  the  need  for  new  fundamental 

» See  p 102 


334  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

thinking.  Keynes  was  not  of  that  opinion.  The  spirit  of  Liberal- 
ism was  living  and  imperishable,  but  in  the  year  1923  it  appeared 
to  him  that  a new  programme  would  have  to  be  devised,  almost 
from  beginning  to  end.  Not  that  he  supposed  himself  to  have 
such  a programme  in  his  pocket.  On  the  contrary,  it  could  only 
be  achieved  by  patient  study  of  the  ever-changing  economic 
structure,  and  by  the  new  idea  that  was  apt  to  the  situation. 

His  next  years  were  spent  in  such  thinking.  He  believed 
that  Liberals  should  turn  their  backs  on  the  old  doctrine  of 
laissez-faire  which  had  served  them  in  good  stead  in  different 
circumstances.  The  State  would  have  to  intervene  at  many  points. 
Yet  the  structure  of  a free  economy  with  its  scope  foi  individual 
initiative  must  be  preserved.  Keynes  remained  essentially  an 
individualist.  In  the  twenty  years  that  followed,  many  others 
have  had  the  same  idea  ; Keynes  deserves  study  bee  ause  he  related 
it  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  economics  and  worked  out  its 
detailed  applications.  His  work  may  still  prove  to  be  the  founda- 
tion of  a new  kind  of  free  economy,  if  freedom  is  indeed  pieserved. 

There  were  other  Liberals  also  who  thought  that  the  Libeial 
policy  needed  refurbishing,  and  some  of  the^^  met  together  at 
Grasmere  in  the  yeai  1921.  Ihc  leading  spirit  among  them  was 
Ramsay  Muir,  who  played  a prominent  part  as  an  intellectual 
guide  to  the  Liber4l  Party  in  the  period  between  the  wais.  His 
mind  was  not  a creative  one  in  the  highest  sense,  but  he  had 
enthusiasm,  clarity,  integrity  and  tireless  industry.  With  him 
from  Manchester  was  Mr.  E.  D.  Simon,  a man  of  notable  business 
achievement,  then  Loid  Mayor  of  Manchester,  and  an  authority 
on  the  housing  question.  There  were  Mr.  Walter  Layton,  Keynes’ 
fellow-lecturer  at  Cambridge  before  the  war,  who  had  since 
proved  himself  an  efficient  public  servant,  and  Sir  William 
Beveridge,  already  famous  for  his  work  on  Social  Insurance.  To 
cheer  them  all  up  was  Philip  Guedalla  with  his  epigrammatic 
scintillations  and  coruscations.  If  we  arc  not  permitted  to  say 
that  beneath  this  he  was  a “ hard-headed  Oxford  man  ”,  we  may 
record  that  he  had  great  intellectual  ability  and  might  have  risen 
to  political  eminence  had  the  fortunes  of  the  Liberal  Party  at 
that  time  been  different.  There  was  also  Ted  Scott,  son  of  the 
great  editor  of  the  Manchester  Guardian.  This  group  did  not 
approach  the  economic  problem  in  quite  the  same  way  as  Keynes, 
but  they  were  interested  both  in  an  active  policy  of  industrial 
reconstruction  and  in  providing  the  rank  and  file  of  labour  with 


ABT  39]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  335 

a status  and  dignity  which  should  be  as  acceptable  as  the  Utopian 
projects  of  Socialism  — and  more  realisable. 

One  result  of  the  Grasmere  meeting  was  the  establishment  of 
the  annual  Liberal  Summer  Schools,  the  function  of  which  was 
to  consist  in  keeping  Liberal  enthusiasm  alive,  in  educating  a 
wide  circle  of  Liberals  in  current  problems,  and  in  providing  a 
forum  for  discussion.  These  “ Schools  ”,  which  met  in  the  follow- 
ing years  alternately  at  Oxford  and  Cambiidge  tor  a week  m 
August,  were  an  unqualified  success,  and  they  still  continue. 

The  group  did  not  rest  content  with  the  Summer  School. 
Their  members  came  together  for  week-ends  duiing  the  winter 
to  discuss  eac  h other’s  memoranda  on  c urrent  problems  and  pro- 
jects of  publication.  One  item  in  their  discussion  was  the  absence 
of  a satisfactory  Liberal  weekly.  It  was  true  that  there  was  the 
Mahon.  This  was  a most  distinguished  periodic  al  which  had  been 
edited,  since  its  foundation  in  i<)07,  by  a great  journalist,  H.  W. 
Massingham.  He  had  a staff  of  able  writers  who  were  devoted 
to  him.  1 he  impress  of  his  peisoiiality  upon  the  paper  was 
marked ; it  had  a distinction  which  appealed  to  intellectual  people 
and  has  been  larcly  matched  in  weekly  journalism.  None  the 
less  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Grasmeie  group  the  Mahon  was 
not  altogether  satisfactory.  It  was  not  that  it  w.is  insufficiently 
“ left  wing  ” ; on  the  contrary,  in  some  respects  it  seemed  fuither 
to  the  left  than  its  contemporary,  the  Mew  Slaksman,  which  was 
by  way  of  supporting  the  Labour  P.irty.  But  its  leftwardness 
was  soniewha*-  negatise,  consisting  in  sincere  and  passionate 
denunciations  of  the  wicked  things  that  went  on  in  the  woild. 
It  voiced  the  etern.il  piotest  of  men  of  refined  feeling  against  the 
obliquities  and  callousness  and  falseness  of  politicians.  This  was 
extreme  Liberalism  verging  almost  on  the  rcMlm  of  revolutionary 
Liberalism,  but  it  was  not  Liberalism  with  a “ new  look  ”.  The 
paper  w.is  not  the  vehicle  of  fresh  practical  ideas  adapted  to  the 
requirements  of  1923.  Furtlieiniore,  the  Mahon  was  not  a paying 
proposition  ; some  thousands  of  pounds  were  lost  every  year,  and 
the  Rowntiee  family,  which  financed  it,  was  becoming  a little 
restive.  As  the  result  of  certain  discussions,  it  appeared  that  new 
money  could  be  found  to  reduce  the  burden  upon  the  Rowntrccs 
if  some  change  could  be  effected  in  the  outlook  of  the  paper. 

Massingham  decided  at  once  that  he  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  all  this.  Gieat  sympathy  was  felt  for  him  after  his 
many  years  of  eminent  work.  But  the  fac  ts  could  not  be  gainsaid. 


336  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

Keynes  was  already  in  a position  to  put  up  some  money ; others 
also  came  forward,  the  Rowntrees  retaining  a share.  Keynes 
was  to  be  Chairman  of  the  new  Board. 

At  first  there  was  an  idea  that  Ramsay  Muir  was  the  obvious 
man  to  be  editor ; but  after  some  meetings  it  became  clear  that  this 
would  not  work  well.  Although  Keynes  and  Muir  were  alike  in 
search  of  a new  policy,  their  types  of  mind  were  somewhat  different. 
In  Keynes’  view,  they  were  starting  with  very  little ; it  was  needful 
to  turn  a penetrating  gaze  upon  contemporary  facts  and  glean 
from  them,  by  science,  by  intuition,  by  political  imagination, 
new  types  of  lemedies  for  new  types  of  evils.  It  was  a voyage 
of  discovery  on  which  they  were  embarked,  to  which  Liberal 
principles  could  contribute  little  except  the  underlying  spirit  and 
temperament  with  which  one  approached  the  problems.  Muir,  on 
the  other  hand,  tended  to  look  inward  to  discover  the  truth.  One 
had  the  feeling  that  locked  within  his  breast  was  a sacred  text  in 
which  the  answers  to  all  problems  could  be  found.  He  was  always 
ready  with  an  answer,  and  that  a sincere  one ; and  this  was  a 
valuable  gilt  in  a politician.  Keynes  feared  that  these  answers, 
derived  from  Muir’s  inner  consciousnc'^s,  might  c onflict  with  new 
ideas,  hitherto  unknown  to  Liberalism,  which  were  derived  from 
a study  of  the  new  situation.  Muir  was  a modest  man,  but  a 
stalwart  crusader, . with  the  pride  of  his  own  sincere  beliefs. 
They  both  decided  that  there  were  possibilities  of  friction ; Muir 
took  on  the  editorship  of  the  Weekly  Westminster. 

Mr.  Hubert  Henderson,  first  class-man  of  the  Cambridge 
Economics  Tripos  before  the  war,  had  done  distinguished  service 
in  the  Cotton  Control  Board  and  had  since  been  lecturing  on 
money  and  allied  subjects  in  Cambridge.  He  was  an  outstanding 
member  of  that  small  band  there  who  were  setting  themselves 
to  apply  the  wisdom  of  Marshall  to  the  post-war  world.  He  was 
installed  as  editor  of  the  Nation  and  held  that  position  until  1929. 

Keynes  devoted  much  of  his  time  to  the  affairs  of  the  paper, 
especially  during  its  first  year  under  the  new  auspices.  He  hoped 
to  make  it  a paying  proposition,  but  in  this,  although  there  was 
some  improvement,  he  did  not  succeed.  The  price  was  reduced 
from  9d.  to  6d.  He  endeavoured  to  secure  a balance  by  curtailing 
overhead  expenses  and  by  increasing  the  advertisements.  He 
refused  to  countenance  economies  at  the  expense  of  the  remunera- 
tion of  contributors ; on  the  contrary,  he  sought  to  attract  writers 
of  the  first  rank  by  paying  them  handsomely^  Bloomsbury  was 


AET.  39]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD 


337 

roped  in  to  assist.  The  first  issue  contained  an  article  by  Lytton 
Strachey  on  Sarah  Bernhardt  and  one  on  Spain  by  Virginia 
Woolf.  Other  Bloomsbury  names  in  due  course  appeared,  as 
well  as  those  of  such  distinguished  writers  as  Augustine  Birrell, 
Gilbert  Murray,  Maxim  Gorky,  Percy  Lubbock,  Osbert  Sitwell, 
etc.  At  first  it  was  hoped  to  secure  Mr.  T.  S.  Eliot  as  Literary 
Editor,  but  he  was  not  immediately  available  and  the  paper 
could  not  wait.  Mr.  Leonard  Woolf  accepted  tlxat  position; 
careful  readers  discerned  that  the  literary  part  of  the  paper,  in 
so  far  as  it  was  political,  was  distinctly  to  the  left  of  the  political 
section  where  Mr.  Henderson  reigned  supreme. 

Keynes  made  it  a rule  never  to  intcricre  with  the  editorial 
policy.  He  went  each  week  to  the  office  and  had  a long  talk 
with  Henderson  on  the  significance  of  current  events.  They  saw 
eye  to  eye  on  many  questions,  but  there  was  never  any  discussion 
about  what  line  the  paper  ought  to  take,  lhat  was  left  to  the 
exclusive  discretion  ol  Mr.  Henderson.  Keynes  contributed 
nothing  to  the  paper  which  was  not  signed  or  initialled,  save  for 
one  note  on  Bonar  Law.  Henderson  could  on  occasion  write  in 
a style  of  trenchant  polemic.  It  was  sometimes  wrongly  supposed 
that  some  of  his  admirably  worded  leaders  were  from  the  pen 
of  Keynes.^ 

For  a number  of  years  Keynes  contributed  signed  articles  at 
intervals  of  about  a month.  For  the  first  seven  issues,  and  again 
for  four  weeks  in  July  1923,  he  also  contributed  the  Notes  on 
Finance  and  Investment  His  main  articles  often  aroused 
widespread  interest,  and  on  a number  of  octasions  received 
notices  — surely  an  unusu<il  phenomenon  in  journalism  --  in  the 
other  important  papers. 

During  1923  most  of  liis  articles  de^dt  with  the  development 
of  the  reparations  problem,  the  subject  on  which  he  was  an 
acknowledged  expert.  These  were  diversified  by  his  address  to 
the  Liberal  Summer  School,"  by  a controversy  with  Sir  William 
Beveridge  on  the  population  problem,^  and  by  two  articles  on 
Free  Trade,  in  connect!  ' i with  the  Geneial  Election  which  took 
place  in  the  autumn  of  1923. 

* Cf.  a number  of  anonymous  articles  wrongly  attributed  to  Keynes  on  pp.  670- 
686  of  the  painstaking  bibliography  in  The  New  Economics  edited  by  Professoi  b.  E. 
Harris.  * Issue  of  nth  August. 

3 Issue  of  26th  October.  Sir  William  Beveridge  had  given  a presidential  address 
to  Section  F of  the  British  Association,  to  which  Keynes  made  a moie  elaboi.itc  reply 
in  the  December  issue  ol  the  Economic  Journal. 

Z 


338  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

The  Liberal  Summer  School  met  this  year  at  Cambridge, 
where  Keynes  moved  Mr.  Sheppard  to  produce  his  translation 
of  the  Cyclops  for  the  benefit  of  a Liberal  audience.  Keynes’ 
own  address  was  mainly  concerned  with  the  evils  of  currency 
fluctuation  and  particularly  of  deflation.  He  thought  that  the 
Liberals  ought  to  find  in  this  currency  question  an  important 
plank  in  their  political  platform.  There  were  complaints  that 
the  currency  question  was  difficult  to  follow,  but  Keynes  insisted 
that  the  relevant  arguments  were  no  more  complicated  than  those 
in  favour  of  Free  Trade.  The  general  public  had  made  the  intel- 
lectual effort  required  to  understand  these  arguments  in  the  early 
Victorian  period,  to  the  lasting  benefit  of  British  politics  and 
British  piosperity.  Why  need  it  be  assumed  that  they  would  be 
incapable  of  understanding  the  arguments  in  favour  of  a stable 
currency,  which  might  well  prove  in  the  coming  )eais  to  be  an 
issue  of  as  great  moment  for  economic  prosperity  as  the  Free 
Trade  versus  Protection  issue? 

Keynes  showed  himself  a convinced  Free  Trader  in  the  two 
articles  on  that  sulrject.  One  of  them  was  specifically  devoted 
to  the  lalla<  > of  supposing  that  tarifis  might  ^e  good  for  employ- 
ment. During  the  General  Election  ( 1923)  he  made  an  important 
speech  at  BlacUiurn,  in  which  he  trounced  the  Protectionists  and, 
striking  at  the  Iclt,  attacked  the  proposal  for  a Capital  Levy,  of 
which  he  had  been  in  favour  immediately  after  the  war.  He 
criticised  the  inflexibility  of  the  Labour  leaders  in  not  realising 
that  the  arguments  which  had  been  valid  then  were  no  longer 
so  at  present. 

2 


On  7th  July  iq2^  the  Bank  Rate  was  raised  from  3 pei  cent 
to  4 per  cent.  Never,  perhaps,  was  the  decision  of  the  Bank  of 
England  Court  moie  fraught  with  fai-reaching  consequences  ; for 
it  set  Keynes’  mind  working  upon  a line  of  thought  which  has 
had  a world-wide  influence  lasting  until  this  day.  He  made  a 
strong  comment  upon  it  in  his  Note  on  Finance  and  Investment  ” 
in  the  Nation  of  14th  July,  and,  contrary  to  the  usual  procedure 
when  his  contribution  was  merely  a financial  note,  his  name  was 
billed  on  the  cover  of  the  paper.  This  rise  in  the  Bank  Rate  was 
“ one  of  the  most  misguided  movements  of  that  indicator  that  has 
ever  occurred. . . . The  Bank  of  England  acting  under  the  influence 
of  a narrow  and  obsolete  doctrine  has  made  a great  mistake.” 


aet.40]  return  to  the  GOLD  STANDARD  339 

Prices  were  falling  and  unemployment  was  severe,  and  it 
seemed  clear  that  this  change  in  the  Bank  Rate  was  not  designed 
to  adjust  the  internal  credit  situation,  but  was  a step  towards 
restoring  stciling  to  its  pre-war  gold  parity.  What  further  steps 
would  be  required?  Through  what  horroiu  of  deflation  might 
we  be  led  ? 

During  the  winter  of  1922-23  the  centre  of  {gravity  of  his 
interests  shifted  from  the  Repaiations  Problem  to  internal  finance, 
and  in  November  1923  a book  entitled  A Tract  on  Monetaty  Reform 
appeared  in  the  bookshops.  This  has  an  important  place  in 
economic  history.  Keynes  wrote  books  of  many  diffenent  kinds, 
and  a fascinating  debate  might  be  held  about  which  had  most 
ultimate  significance.  In  the  Tjeattse  on  Piohabihlv  he  explc-»red 
the  foundations  of  human  knowledge  in  a work  which,  although 
not  definitive,  has  continued  to  stimulate  thought  upon  its  deep 
problems.  The  Economic  Consequences  was  his  greatest  masterpiece 
of  polemic  ; it  made  his  public  reputation  and  had  an  important 
impact  on  foicign  politics.  The  two  large  works,  the  Treatise  on 
Money  and  The  General  Theory  of  Employminty  Interest  and  Money ^ 
have  had  lar-i caching  effects  on  economic  science  and  thereby 
indirectly  on  public  policy.  There  arc  still  purists  who  give  the 
first  prize  to  his  book  on  Indian  Currency.  In  spite  of  all  this, 
a claim  could  be  made  on  behalf  of  the  Tract  on  Monetary  Reform. 
For  generations  there  had  been  economists  wdio  hedd  that  the 
Gold  Standard  was  not  the  best  possible  form  of  nione)  , rcc  ently 
a brilliant  campaign  had  been  conducted  by  the  Ameiican 
economist,  Irving  fdshcr.  Yet  on  the  whole  it  seemed  that  this 
sort  of  advocacy  was  confined  to  cranks  and  very  ac  ideinic 
economi:»ts.  The  Gold  Standard  - with  the  respectable  alter- 
natives of  a Silver  Standard  or,  now  fading  into  the  background, 
bi-metallism  — was  universally  accepted.  Its  desirability  was  not 
a live  issue.  The  Tract  on  Monetary  Rijorm  seemed  to  come  near 
to  making  it  one.  Seemed  — or  had  it  really  done  so  ? At  fiist 
this  was  in  doubt,  because,  in  spite  of  the  book,  Britain  and  most 
other  countries  returned  to  the  Gold  Standard  shortly  afterwards, 
and  the  matter  appeared  to  be  closed.  However,  the  book 
caused  a controversy  which  was  sufficiently  lively  to  be  lemem- 
bered  for  some  years ; the  leading  politicians  and  bankers  took 
notice ; the  seeds  of  doubt  had  been  sown  among  a wide  public. 
For  a year  or  two  Keynes’  view  was  in  eclipse.  But  within  a decade 
it  had  won  the  allegiance  of  at  least  half  the  World.  Affection 


340  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [ws 

for  the  Gold  Standard  may  yet  revive.  If  it  does  not,  the  historian 
will  record  that  Keynes,  almost  single-handed,  killed  that  most 
ancient  and  venerable  institution. 

It  was  a notable  achievement,  because  the  Gold  Standard 
was  perhaps  the  most  respected  and  sacrosanct  of  all  the  mechan- 
isms of  nineteenth-century  Capitalism.  If  a Labour  Party  had 
gained  power  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  twentieth  century  on  a 
programme  for  nationalising  the  means  of  production  and  distri- 
bution, it  would  probably  not  have  ventured  to  lay  hands  on  the 
Gold  Standard  itself.  Even  Socialists  claimed  to  respect  the  import- 
ance of  a sound  monetary  system.  It  could,  no  doubt,  be  argued 
that  it  was  the  First  World  War  that  really  killed  the  Gold  Stan- 
dard, since  thereafter  it  has  proved  difficult  to  make  it  work. 

Yet  in  1923  the  vast  majority  were  still  striving  after  it.  It 
was  Keynes  who  first  gained  wide  interest  for  the  doctiine  that 
it  was  not  a good  thing  in  itself.  He  did  it  very  quietly  and  gently. 
It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  forceful  and  passionate  polemic 
of  the  Economic  Comeqiience^^  where  he  knew  exactly  what  he  wanted 
to  say  and  said  it  with  a vengeance,  with  the  tentative  and  almost 
diffident  tone  of  the  last  filty  pages  of  the  if met^  where  he  was 
hardly  doing  more  than  thinking  aloud.  The  reader  feels  that  in 
Keynes’  own  mind  the  issue  had  ior  some  time  been  in  doubt. 
He  finally  reached  his  decision  and  explained  in  simple  and 
unadorned  language  why  he  had  done  so. 

Thefiist  section  of  the  book  does  not  tarr)  a warning  of  mo- 
mentous proposals  to  come.  There  is  a thorough,  and  sometimes 
amusing,  analysis  of  the  evils  resulting  from  an  unstable  currency. 

Thus  Inflation  is  unjust  and  Deflation  is  inexpedient.  Of  the 
two  perhaps  Deflation  is,  if  we  rule  out  exaggeiated  inflations 
such  as  that  of  Gennanv,  the  worse ; because  it  is  worse,  in  an 
impoverished  world,  to  provoke  unemployment  than  to  disappoint 
the  rentier.  But  it  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  weigh  one  evil 
against  the  other.  It  is  easier  to  agree  that  both  are  evils  to  be 
shunned.  The  Individualistic  Capitalism  of  to-day,  precisely 
because  it  entrusts  saving  to  the  individual  investor  and  production 
to  the  individual  employer,  presumes  a stable  measuring-rod  of 
value,  and  cannot  be  efficient  — perhaps  cannot  survive  — with- 
out one.” 

There  were  controversial  sallies,  to  titillate  the  reader,  and 
Sir  Josiah  Stamp  gave  warning  in  an  interesting  review  * that 
* Journal  of  the  Royal  Statistical  Soae^,  May  1924. 


ABT.  40]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  341 

these  might  jeopardise  its  persuasive  effect.  There  is  a reference 
to  many  conservative  bankers  **  who  ‘‘  regard  it  as  more  con- 
sonant with  their  cloth,  and  also  as  economising  thought,  to  shift 
public  discussion  of  financial  topics  off  the  logical  on  to  an  alleged 
‘ moral  ’ plane,  which  means  a realm  of  thought  where  vested 
interest  can  be  triumphant  over  the  common  good  without  further 
debate.  But  it  makes  them  untrustworthy  guides  in  a perilous 
age  of  transition.”  There  is  also  in  this  section  ol  the  book  an 
intriguing  analysis  of  the  rate  at  which  a government  can  abstract 
purchasing  power  from  the  pockets  of  its  citizens  by  means  of 
inflation,  the  maximum  possible  rate  tending  to  fall  as  inflation 
gets  more  rampant. 

The  middle  part  of  the  book  has  piobably  been  the  most 
widely  read  during  the  years  since  it  appealed,  as  it  has  provided 
a convenient  text  for  university  teachers.  Here  Keynes  re- 
entered the  classroom  and  expounded  the  esscnual  point.s  of  the 
‘‘  Cambridge  ” monetary  theory.  For  a wider  public  he  greatly 
simplified  the  formulae  which  1 had  seen  him  place  upon  the 
blackboard  a year  earlier.  The  value  c^f  money  was  the  conse- 
quence of  the  interaction  of  two  decisions,  the  decision  of  the 
Central  Bank  as  to  how  much  credit  to  cnMtc  and  tlie  decision 
of  members  of  the  pulJic  as  to  how  much  real  ” value,  i,e.  how 
much  purchasing  power  over  goods,  the>  wished  from  time  to 
time  to  hold  by  them  in  the  forms  of  currency  or  a bank  balance. 
Policies  of  the  former  had  long  been  carefully  studied,  but  insuffi- 
cient attention  had  been  paid  to  motives  actuating  the  latter. 
He  also  dealt  with  the  “ purchasing  power  parity  theory  ” con- 
cerning foreign  exchange  rates,  showing  its  usefulness  and  limita- 
tions; and  he  reproduced  his  account  of  the  theory  of  forward 
foreign  exchange  rates  from  his  Mamhtster  Guatdian  Supplement 
article  in  a form  useful  for  students.  It  is  in  the  course  of  the 
academic  section  of  the  book  that  he  used  a phrase  whicli  we 
may  now  perhaps  regard  as  proverbial  in  the  English  language. 
He  spoke  of  the  cruder  form  ol  the  Quantity  Theory  of  money  as 
being  valid  only  in  tht  tong  run.  “ But  this  lorif^  lun  is  a mis- 
leading guide  to  current  affairs.  In  the  long  run  wc  are  all  dead. 
Economists  set  themselves  too  easy,  too  useless  a task,  if  in  tem- 
pestuous seasons  they  ran  only  tell  us  that  when  the  storm  is  long 
past  the  ocean  is  flat  again.” 

He  moved  quietly  into  the  concluding  explosive  section  of 
his  book  by  presenting  various  alternatives.  Sliould  we  prefer 


342  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

devaluation  or  deflation?  The  answer  to  that  was  easy.  He 
reproduced  material  from  his  Manchester  Guardian  article  in  favour 
of  devaluation.  Then  we  come  to  something  more  exciting. 
Should  we  choose  to  have  monetary  stability  — the  early  section 
of  the  book  had  argued  its  supreme  importance  — in  the  form 
of  stable  internal  prices  or  a stable  foreign  exchange  rate  ? This 
was  a momentous  question  which  has  troubled  the  waters  of 
opinion  ever  since.  In  the  post-war  world  experts  had  been  urging 
monetary  stability,  and  it  was  generally  assumed  that  this  meant 
a return  to  the  Gold  StandaM.  Keynes  thought  the  time  had 
come  to  seek  greater  precision  and  to  pose  the  alternatives. 

The  tacit  assumption  that  gold  would  provide  a regime  of 
fairly  stable  prices,  as  well  as  stable  exchanges,  had  to  be  recon- 
sidered. In  the  nineteenth  century  it  had  served  sulTicicntly  well, 
partly  because  the  expansion  of  output  from  the  gold  mines  had 
kept  fairly  good  pace  with  the  expansion  of  general  production. 
We  could  not  rely  on  a succession  of  new  gold  discoveries  on  an 
evcr-incrcasiiig  scale.  There  was  another  even  more  important 
point.  The  es'^eme  of  the  situation  in  the  nineteenth  century 
was  that  the  value  of  gold  had  been  determine^  l)y  a large  number 
of  independent  lorccs,  resulting  from  the  policies  of  various  nations 
and  the  behaviour  of  their  citizens.  The  effects  of  changes  in 
these  often  cancelled  one  another  out.  But  now  the  situation 
was  entirely  altered,  owing  to  the  great  absorption  of  gold  by  the 
United  States  of  America.  There  was  no  longer  any  independent 
entity  which  one  could  call  the  Gold  Standard ; the  Gold  Stan- 
dard now  simply  meant  the  Dollar  Standard.  Furthermore,  the 
dollar  was  already  a managed  currency.  The  Federal  Reserve 
System  had  not  been  automatically  increasing  the  volume  of 
currency  or  of  credit  in  the  U.S.A.  on  the  receipt  of  gold ; had 
it  done  so,  it  would  have  produced  a wild  inflation  there : 

The  theory  on  which  the  Federal  Reservf'  Board  is  supposed  to 
govern  its  discount  policy,  by  reference  to  the  influx  and  efflux  of 
gold  and  the  proportion  of  gold  to  liabilities,  is  as  dead  as  mutton. 
It  perished,  and  perished  justly,  as  soon  as  the  Federal  Reserve 
Board  began  to  ignore  its  ratio  and  to  accept  gold  without  allowing 
it  to  exercise  its  full  influence,*  merely  because  an  c^xpansion  of  credit 

* The  influx  of  gold  could  not  be  prevented  from  ha\ing  some  inflationary  effect 
because  its  receipt  automalicallv  increased  the  balances  of  the  member  banks.  This 
uncontrollable  element  cannot  be  avoided  so  long  as  the  United  States  Mints  arc 
compelled  to  accept  yold.  But  the  gold  was  not  allowed  to  exercise  the  multiplied 
influence  which  the  pre-war  system  presumed.  (Note  by  J.  M.  K.) 


AET.40]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD 


343 

and  prices  seemed  at  that  moment  undesirable.  Fioni  that  day  gold 
was  demonetised  by  almost  the  last  country  which  still  continued  to 
do  it  lip-service,  and  a dollar  standard  was  set  up  on  the  pedestal  of 
the  Golden  Calf.  For  the  past  two  years  the  United  States  has 
pretended  to  maintain  a gold  standard.  In  fact  it  has  established  a 
dollar  standard  ; and,  instead  of  ensuring  that  the  value  of  the  dollar 
shall  conform  to  that  of  gold,  it  makes  prosision,  at  great  expense, 
that  the  value  of  gold  shall  conform  to  that  of  the  clolLvr.  Ti’his  is  the 
way  by  which  a rich  country  is  able  to  combine  new  wisdom  with 
old  prejudice.  It  can  enjoy  the  latest  scientific  improvements, 
devised  in  the  economic  laboiator)  of  Haivaid,  whilst  Ic'avmg 
Congress  to  believe  that  no  lash  dcpaitine  will  be  peimitted  from 
the  hard  money  consecrated  >)y  the  wisdom  *ind  expciicnc  e (A  Dungi, 
Darius,  Constantine,  I.ord  Liverpool,  and  Sc'nator  Aldiiih. 

One  might  react  to  this  by  suggesting  that  to  icsiimc  tlic  gc^lcl 
link  would  allow  Biitaiii  to  enjoy  the  bent  lit  dI  this  curiency 
management.  Keynes  saw  objections  : 

It  would  be  rash  in  ])iesenl  ciiciimstanccs  to  sunendei  our  fiee- 
dom  of  action  to  the  Federal  Reserve  Boaid  of  the  United  States. 
We  do  not  \el  possess  sulheient  experience  ol  its  capacity  to  act  in 
times  of  stress  with  courage  and  independence  I’he  1 ederal 
Reserve  Board  is  striving  to  free  itself  fiom  the  piessuie  of  sectional 
interests  ; but  we  are  not  yet  certain  that  it  will  whollv  succeed.  It 
is  still  liable  to  lie  ovcTwhelmcd  by  lh<‘  impctucjsily  ol  a c heap  money 
campaign  A suspicion  of  Biitish  inlluence  would,  o fai  from 
strengthening  the  Board,  gieatly  weaken  its  resistance  to  popular 
clamour.  Nor  is  it  ccilain,  quitc^  apait  fiom  weaknes**  or  mistakes, 
that  the  simultaneous  application  ol  the  same  policy  will  always  be  in 
the  interests  of  both  c » unti  ies.  1 he  development  of  the  ci  edit  c yc  le 
and  the  state  of  busir  *ss  may  sometimes  be  widely  diffeient  on  the 
two  sides  of  the  Atlantic. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  Ke\)ics  did  not  conccue  the 
issue  at  stake  to  be  whether  we  should  have  a managed  or  an 
automatic  standard.  An  automatic  standard  had  for  some  time 
ceased  to  exist  in  pra»  ace  and  was  now  n(3  longer  available. 
The  question  for  him  was  whether  our  currency  should  be 
managed  so  as  to  secure  stable  external  value,  t.e,  to  maintain  a 
fixed  dollar  parity  (so-called  Gold  Standard),  or  whether  it  should 
be  managed  so  as  to  secure  a stable  internal  price  level.  His 
decision  was  in  favour  of  the  latter. 

How  then  should  we  proceed?  His  answdr  was  simple  — 


344  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1923 

‘‘  By  an  adaptation  of  the  actual  system  which  has  grown  up  half 
haphazardly  since  the  war  The  adaptation  should  consist  in 
a conscious  quest  for  a stable  internal  price  level.  He  referred 
to  Irving  Fisher’s  propw)sals,  but  doubted  if  they  were  adequate 
to  cope  with  the  short-period  oscillations  of  the  credit  cycle.  But 
he  went  some  way  with  Fisher  by  allowing  that  ‘‘  the  authority 
should  adopt  a composite  commodity  as  their  standard  of  value 
in  the  sense  that  they  would  employ  all  their  resources  to  prevent 
a movement  of  its  price  by  more  than  a certain  percentage  in 
either  direction  away  from  the  normal,  just  as  before  the  war 
they  employed  all  their  resources  to  prevent  a movement  in  the 
price  of  gold  by  more  than  a certain  percentage  ”.  The  actual 
movement  of  prices  musr  not  be  the  sole  criterion,  since  action 
resulting  therefrom  might  be  unduly  delayed. 

Actual  piicc-movements  must  of  course  provide  the  most 
important  datum ; but  the  state  of  employment,  the  volume  of 
pioduc  lion,  the  effective  demand  for  credit  as  felt  by  the  banks,  the 
rate  of  interest  on  investments  ol  various  types,  the  volume  of  new 
issues,  the  flow  of  cash  into  ciiculation,  the  statistics  of  foreign  trade 
and  the  level  of  the  exchanges  must  all  be  tak<jp  into  account.  The 
main  point  is  that  the  objective  ol  the  authoiities,  puisued  with  such 
means  as  are  at  iheii  command,  should  be  the  stability  of  prices. 

He  suggested  a somewhat  more  formal  arrangement  than  we 
actually  had  in  1923  (or  in  the  period  from  1931  to  1939).  The 
Court  of  the  Bank  of  England  should  fix  the  price  of  gold  each 
Thursday,  just  as  it  fixed  the  Bank  Rate.  It  should  enlarge  the 
margin  between  its  buying  and  selling  price.  It  should  also  offer 
to  buy  and  sell  forward  exchange  at  fixed  rates,  thereby  allowing 
the  British  to  offer  a higher  (or  lower)  short-term  rate  of  interest 
to  foreign  borrowers  (01  lenders)  than  obtained  on  domestic  loans 
in  London.  The  Bank  would  then  have  three  levers  to  operate. 
On  any  Thursday  it  could  alter  its  official  discount  rate,  it  could 
alter  its  spot  buying  and  selling  prices  of  gold  and  it  could, 
simultaneously  or  independently,  alter  its  forward  buying  and 
selling  prices  of  gold.  Here  was  a notable  plan  which  he  put 
forward  for  careful  consideration,  before  we  embarked  upon  the 
perilous  course  of  fixing  a parity  with  the  dollar. 

The  book  created  a great  flutter.  On  the  whole  the  reception 
was  hostile.  People  were  profoundly  shocked  at  the  idea  of 
abandoning  the  sheet  anchor  of  stability  constituted  by  the  Gold 
Standard.  Keynes  could  by  no  means  carry  all  his  Liberal  friends 


ABT.40]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  345 

vdth  him.  Indeed  some  Liberals  were  among  those  especially 
perturbed,  since  they  intensely  disliked  handing  over  such  an 
important  subject  to  the  discretion  of  the  Government.  They 
were  not  impressed  by  the  argument  that  the  currency  was  bound 
to  be  a “ managed  ” one  in  any  case.  The  bogy  of  a great 
inflation  was  produced.  To  Keynes  this  seemed  irrelevant.  He 
deemed  England  a suflii  icntly  mature  country  for  it  to  be  possible 
to  assume  that  the  authorities  could  be  trusted  to  carry  out  a 
policy  of  monetary  reform  f.iithfully,  and  would  nc'l  indulge  in  an 
orgy  of  feckless  note  issue.  This  was  a notable  mark  of  his  respect 
for  the  Treasury  and  the  Bank,  despite  the  severe  attacks  he  had 
felt  bound  to  make  upon  them  recently.  It  was  one  thing  to 
accuse  them  of  hopeless  Con'-ervatism,  obscurantism,  pigheaded- 
ness, failure  to  read  the  .signs  of  the  times,  failure  to  introduce 
the  reforms  that  were  needed  if  Capitalism  nas  to  be  saved,  and 
quite  another  to  as^umc  that  they  were  so  irresponsible  that,  if 
only  they  were  given  the  power,  they  would  embark  on  a career 
of  squandermania  by  printing  bank-notes.  Keynes  believed  that 
the  old  boys  were  fundamentally  trustworthy  and  well-meaning ; 
but  they  were  blind  and  complacent,  and  greatly  needed  prodding. 
The  old-fashioned  Liberals  ran  away  from  his  proposals  on  the 
dogma  that  Central  Authorities  can  in  no  event  be  trusted ; but 
these  Liberals  had  no  cure  for  the  current  ills.  Thus  Keynes  had 
great  initial  difficulties  in  gaining  acceptance  for  ideas  which 
might  provide  the  middle  way  between  Socialism  and  -i  collapsing 
Capitalism.  To  him  this  currency  reform  was  all-important, 
because  it  would  be  the  basis  for  the  other  reforms  that  he  was 
beginning  to  have  in  mind. 

3 

On  12  th  April  1924  no  less  a person  than  Idoyd  George  wrote 
to  the  Jiaiion  calling  for  a large-scale  programme  of  public  works. 
Unemployment  figures  had  been  for  some  time  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  a million.  Llo\d  George  was  the  type  of  Liberal  who 
was  not  averse  from  State  intervention  ; he  was  temperamentally 
inclined  to  meet  the  manifest  social  evil  of  unemployment  by 
positive  action ; the  idea  of  a streamlined  and  up-to-date  nation- 
wide system  of  public  utilities  appealed  to  him ; this  seemed  a 
fitting  plan  to  offer  in  substitution  for  the  inertia  of  the  authorities. 
Lloyd  George  had  been  out  of  office  for  more  than  a year,  and 
was  Raking  a policy  both  in  agriculture  and  industry  that  would 


346  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  \1924 

have  some  popular  appeal.  There  followed  a stream  of  letters 
from  such  authorities  as  Mr.  Walter  Layton  and  Sir  William 
Beveridge.  Keynes  allowed  the  correspondence  to  gather  momen- 
tum, keeping  his  admirers  in  suspense  about  his  own  views, 
and  finally  intervened  himself  on  24th  May : Does  Unemploy- 
ment Meed  a Drastic  Remedy  ? Yes,  it  did.  He  proposed  that  the 
Treasury  should  use  the  Sinking  Fund  “ to  spend  up  to,  say, 
3(^100,000,000  per  year  on  the  construction  of  capital  works  at 
home,  enlisting  in  vaiious  ways  the  aid  of  private  genius,  tempera- 
ment and  skill  Housing  was  clearly  a much-needed  form  of 
capital  development,  and  he  hinted  at  what  we  have  come  to 
know  as  prefabs  ”,  an  idea  to  which  his  mind  reverted  in 
Washington  in  iq44.  “It  should  not  be  beyond  the  technical 
accomplishments  of  our  engineers  to  devise  a national  scheme 
for  the  mass  production  of  houses  which  would  supplement  the 
normal  activities  of  the  building  industry  and  make  up  in  5 or 
10  years  the  deficiency  with  which  the  latter  has  proved  unable 
to  deal.”  He  also  iccommended  the  adaptation  of  our  road 
system  to  the  needs  of  modern  transpoit,  and  a large  scheme  for 
the  transmission  oi  electric  power.  “ I look,  lh#n,  for  the  ultimate 
cure  c^l  unemployment  and  for  the  stimulus  which  shall  initiate  a 
cumulative  prospciity  to  monetary  reform  — which  will  remove 
fear  — and  to  the  (diversion  of  the  National  Savings  fiom  relatively 
barren  foreign  investment  into  statc-cncouraged  constructive 
entcrpiisc  at  home,  which  will  inspire  confidence.  I’hat  pait  of 
our  recent  unemployment  which  is  not  attributable  to  an  ill- 
conti oiled  credit  cycle,  has  been  largely  due  to  the  slump  in  our 
constructional  industries.  By  conducting  the  national  wealth 
into  capital  developments  at  home  we  may  lestore  the  balance 
of  our  economy.  Let  us  experiment  with  boldness  on  such  lines  — 
even  though  some  of  the  schemes  may  turn  out  to  be  failures, 
w^hich  is  very  likely.” 

Two  weeks  later  he  replied  to  criticisms  in  an  article  which 
laid  great  stress  on  the  diversion  of  savings  from  foreign  invest- 
ments. 

In  my  opinion,  there  arc  many  reasons  for  thinking  that  our 
present  rate  of  foieign  investment  is  excessive  and  undesirable.  We 
are  lending  too  cheaply  resources  which  we  can  ill  spare.  Our 
tiaditional,  conventional  attitude  towards  foreign  investment 
demands  reconsideration ; it  is  high  time  to  give  it  a bad  name 
and  to  call  it  “ the  flight  of  capital  ”.  But  I must  limit  myself 


AET.40]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  347 

here  to  the  single  aspect  which  is  relevant  to  the  special  problem  of 
unemployment. 

Some  foreign  investments  lead  directly  to  the  placing  of  orders  in 
this  country  which  would  not  be  so  placed  otherwise.  Whether  or 
not  they  are  desirable  on  general  grounds,  such  investments  do  no 
harm  to  employment.  As  a rule,  however,  this  is  not  the  case.  A 
foreign  loan  does  not,  any  more  than  a demand  for  Reparations, 
automatically  create  a corresponding  flow  of  expoits.  Let  us  take  a 
particular  example.  Last  week  New  South  Wales  bon  owed  in  the 
London  maiket  £5,500,000  new  money  “ for  lailways,  tiamways, 
harbours,  rivers  and  bridges,  water  supply,  irrigation,  scw'crage  and 
other  purposes  A part  of  this  may  pay  for  orders  placed  here 
arising  out  of  these  undertakings.  Probablv  the  greater  portion  will 
not  be  used  thus,  but  in  paying  labour  on  the  spot,  and  impoi  ting 
supplies  from  elsewhere.  That  is  to  say,  the  resources  will  be  trans- 
ferred to  Australia  in  roundabout  ways  Soonei  or  latei,  the  matter 
must  be  adjusted  by  increased  British  exports  or  diminished  Biitish 
imports.  But  this  can  only  conic  about  through  the  medium  of  a 
depreciation  of  the  sterling  exchange.  C^ur  exchanges  have  to 
depreciate  so  as  to  stimulate  oui  export  industries  at  the  expense  of 
our  “ sheltered  ” non-export  industiics,  and  so  lediess  the  balance 
between  the  two.  If  the  world  demand  for  our  exports  at  the  present 
price  level  is  inelastic,  a considerable  depreciation  may  be  necessary 
to  do  the  trick.  Moreover,  there  may  be  violent  resistances  to  the 
process  of  adjustment.  The  fall  of  the  exchange'  tends  to  laise  the 
“ cost  of  living  ”,  .ind  the  “ sheltered  ” industries  in.iy  struggle  to 
avoid  the  reduction  of  real  WMges  wdiich  this  entails.  Our  economic 
structure  is  far  from  elastic,  and  much  time  may  elapse  and 
indirect  loss  result  fiom  the  strains  set  up  and  the  breakages 
incurred.  Meanwhile  resources  may  lie  idle  and  labour  be  out  C'f 
employment. 

The  old  principle  of  lamez-Jaire  w«is  to  ignore  these  strains  and 
to  assume  that  capital  and  labour  were  fluid  ; it  also  assumed  that, 
if  invc'stois  choose  to  send  their  money  abroad  at  5 per  cent,  this 
must  mean  that  there  is  nothin^  at  home  worth  doing  at  5 per  cent. 
Fifty  years  ago,  this  may  have  been  a closer  approximation  to  the 
truth  than  it  is  now.  'Aith  the  existing  rigidity  of  the  Iraac  union 
organisation  of  labour,  with  the  undue  preference  which  the  City 
organisation  of  new  issues  and  the  Trustee  Acts  afford  to  overseas 
investment,  and  with  the  caution  which  for  many  reasons,  some 
good  and  some  bad,  now  oppresses  the  undertaking  of  new  capital 
investment  at  home,  it  does  not  work. 

Can  I now  carry  my  critics  with  me  this  far,^ — that,  if  in  the 
last  six  months,  instead  of  £10,000,000  capital  issues  for  new  home 


348  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1924 

developments  and  ^^50,000, 000  for  new  developments  abroad,  the 
figures  had  been  the  other  way  round,  this  would  have  been  a change 
for  the  better,  and  favourable  to  employment  ? Surely  they  cannot 
maintain  that  England  is  a finished  job,  and  that  there  is  nothing 
in  it  worth  doing  on  a 5 per  cent  basis.  Then  let  them  agree  with 
me  in  wishing,  if  we  could  manage  it,  to  stimulate  investment  at 
home. 

In  considering  how  to  do  this,  we  are  brought  to  my  heresy  — if 
it  is  a heresy.  I bring  in  the  State ; 1 abandon  laissez  faire,  — not 
enthusiastically,  not  from  contempt  of  that  good  old  doctrine,  but 
because,  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  the  conditions  for  its  success  have 
disappeared.  It  was  a double  doctrine,  - it  entrusted  the  public 
weal  to  private  enterprise  unchecked  and  unaided.  Private  enterprise 
is  no  longer  unchecked,  — it  is  checked  and  threatened  in  many 
different  ways.  There  is  no  going  bark  on  this.  The  forces  which 
press  us  may  be  blind,  but  they  exist  and  are  strong.  And  if  private 
enterprise  is  not  unchecked,  we  cannot  leave  it  unaided. 

For  these  reasons  I claim  to  be  nearer  than  Mr.  Brand  to  the 
realities  and  possibilities  of  the  modern  world  in  repeating  that  the 
next  developments  of  politic-economic  evolution  will  emerge  from 
new  experiments  directed  towards  determining  the  appropriate 
spheics  of  individual  and  govenimental  action.  And  pioceeding  to 
particulars,  I suggest  that  the  State  encouragement  of  new  capital 
undertakings  by  employing  the  best  technical  advice  to  lay  the 
foundations  of  gi^at  schemes,  and  by  lending  the  credit  and  the 
guarantee  of  the  IVeasury  to  finance  them  more  boldly  than  hitherto, 
is  becoming  an  inevitable  policy.  There  is  no  sphere  wheic  private 
initiative  is  so  lacking  — for  quite  intelligible  reasons  — as  in  the 
conception  and  execution  of  very  costly  projects  which  may  be 
expected  to  yield  from  5 to  6 per  cent.  I’he  Trade  Facilities  Act 
continues  to  depend  on  i)rivate  initiative,  and  only  such  projects  are 
helped  by  it  as  private  enterprise  is  inclined  to  plan  and  to  back. 
Mr.  Brand,  the  City  Editor  of  The  Times ^ and  many  others  point 
to  the  unused  balance  of  credit  under  this  Act  as  convincing  proof 
that  there  is  nothing  more  to  be  done.  1 do  not  agree,  because  big 
new  projects  of  a public  character  are  not  the  kind  of  thing  for  which 
the  Act  is  devised.  Let  me  set  against  this  the  very  recent  report  of 
the  Chamber  of  Shipping  Committee,  which  points  out  the  urgent 
need  of  expensive  developments  in  many  of  our  great  ports,  as  one 
proof  amongst  many  that  the  equipment  of  this  country  is  not  com- 
plete and  up-to-date  in  all  respects.  Indeed,  it  is  a bold  and  hazard- 
ous saying  of  my  critics  that  our  savings  must  drift  abroad  at  5 per 
cent  because  there  is  simply  nothing  worth  doing  in  England  at  that 
price. 


AKF  40]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  349 

We  may  ask  ourselves  what  would  have  been  the  economic 
fortunes  of  Britain  had  she  not  returned  to  the  Gold  Standard  in 
1925,  thus  saving  herself  from  the  Coal  Strike  and  the  General 
Strike  and  other  consequential  industrial  troubles,  had  she  shaped 
a policy  for  maintaining  the  sterling  price  level  when  the  world 
slump  came  in  1929,  and  had  she  executed  a thorough  icconstruc- 
tion  of  her  public  utilities  and  basic  industries  in  the  ’twenties, 
when  she  had  spare  resources  for  the  purpose.  Such  a recon- 
struction was  found  to  be  sadly  overdue  ten  and  twenty  years 
later.  In  connection  with  this  last  point  we  may  wonder  if  there 
were  at  the  time  youthful  members  of  the  Laboui  Parts  who 
judged  that  Keynes  had  more  to  offer  than  the  stale  old  doc  trines, 
and  made  mental  notes  of  the  plan  for  large-scale  capital  develop- 
ment,— only  to  have  the  opportunity  to  bring  them  out  of  then 
mental  pigeon-holes  at  a period,  of  all  periods  in  British  hijilorv, 
the  least  suitable  for  such  an  undertaking,  namelv,  1945-50.  The 
mind  of  the  public  was  slow  to  move  in  1924,  and  Keynes  got 
little  support  for  his  double  poUcy,  which  was  planned  to  meet 
contemporary  evils. 

At  the  Liberal  Summer  School,  in  Oxford  that  year,  Keynes 
returned  to  the  charge  upon  the  subject  of  foieign  investment. 
He  claimed  that  the  Trustee  Acts  gave  it  undue  preference ; he 
put  together  a gloomy  tale  of  how  many  of  our  past  investments 
overseas  had  lesulted  in  loss  and  default.  Let  the  Trustee  Act 
be  amended  so  as  to  give  home  lequiremcnts  a better  chance. 

Keynes  speke  with  vehemence  and  a manifest  desire  to  per- 
suade. The  matter  clearly  seemed  to  him  to  be  one  of  the  utmost 
importance.  The  audVnee  was  intciested,  but  showed  no  signs 
of  sharing  his  sense  of  urgency.  I was  there  myself  and  watched 
its  reaction  closely.  The  feeling  seemed  to  be  that  Keynes  had 
made  a case  with  his  usual  effectiveness  for  being  somewhat  more 
critical  of  foieign  investment.  This,  however,  appeared  to  be 
rather  a specialised  point,  worth  taking  note  of,  but  not  apparently 
related  to  any  big  pla’  1 in  the  Liberal  programme.  Indeed,  if 
one  looked  at  his  proposi<ion  from  a political  standpoint,  it  seemed 
somewhat  anti-Liberal  in  tendenc).  Liberals  had  always  stood 
for  a large  foreign  trade  and  an  international  outlook.  This 
preference  for  home  projects  seemed  to  be  a little  nationalistic 
in  flavour.  It  might  be  wise,  but  was  it  specifically  Liberal? 
Furthermore,  from  another  point  of  view  it  was  not  very  attract- 
ive, for  many  of  the  investments  would  be  in  our  Dominions 


350  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1924 

and  Colonies,  and  so  the  proposition  appeared  to  have  a Little 
England  flavour  at  a time  when  the  Liberals  had  long  ceased 
to  think  in  Little  England  terms.  Thus  Keynes’  address  seemed 
rather  to  be  fulfilling  the  educational  function  of  the  school  than 
making  a contribution  to  a fighting  programme. 

Yet  Keynes  himself  clearly  thought  of  it  differently ; to  him 
what  he  had  to  say  was  obviously  central  and  crucial.  Why  was 
this  ? Let  it  be  granted  that  all  that  he  said  about  the  disappoint- 
ments in  past  investments  abroad  was  true ; let  it  be  granted  that 
we  should  be  more  cautious  in  future ; let  it  be  granted  that  the 
Trustee  Act  should  be  amended  to  give  home  development  a 
better  chance.  Yet  why  was  all  this  so  crucial  ? In  his  mind  it 
was  clearly  linked  with  the  cure  of  unemployment.  That  certainly 
was  crucial  — but  what  exactly  was  the  connection  ? Watching 
his  enthusiasm  on  the  one  side  and  the  comparative  apathy  of 
the  audience  on  the  other,  I felt  that  there  was  some  missing  clue, 
something  unexplained,  that  his  statement  needed  amplification, 
that  there  was  some  message  which  he  had  failed  to  deliver. 

There  was  indeed  a missing  clue.  The  task  of  discovering 
that  clue  was  to  occupy  the  next  twelve  yearsr  of  his  life.  What 
was  lacking  was  an  explanation  in  terms  of  fundamental  economic 
theory  of  the  causes  of  unemployment.  Orthodox  theory  did  not 
appear  to  justify  Keynes’  contention  that  it  could  be  reduced  by 
diverting  investment  from  foreign  to  home  channels,  and  his  own 
arguments  seemed  inconclusive. 

Various  ini  cresting  reflections  occur  in  this  connection.  One 
is  how  early  (1924)  Keynes  had  completed  the  outline  of  the  public 
policy  which  has  since  been  specifically  associated  with  his  name 
— credit  control  to  eliminate  the  credit  cycle,  State-sponsored 
capital  development  and,  for  a country  in  Britain’s  position,  some 
check  upon  the  outward  flow  of  capital.  The  main  framework 
was  there  in  1924.  If  Keynes  put  forward  these  proposals  before 
being  in  a position  to  give  a full  theoretical  justification  of  them, 
that  was,  no  doubt,  because  he  deemed  it  urgently  needful  for 
Britain  to  act  with  speed.  It  must  not  be  inferred  that  they  were 
thrown  out  at  random. 

In  the  last  two  years  he  had  been  actively  working  on  the 
theory  of  credit  and  capital.  He  had  been  feeling  his  way 
forward.  The  processes  of  the  mind  are  inscrutable.  Did  he  in 
some  primitive  sense  already  know  the  theoretical  conclusions 
that  he  was  later  to  articulate?  He  had  uncanny  powers  of 


AET.4I]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  351 

intuition.  Is  it  possible  for  the  mind  to  jump  from  the  data 
which  are  the  premises  of  an  argument  to  the  practical  conclusions, 
without  being  conscious  oneself  of  the  theoretical  conclusions, 
which  are  none  the  less  the  necessary  logical  link  between  the 
premises  and  the  practical  conclusions  ? 

It  is  desirable  to  give  some  example  of  the  theoretical  dilemmas 
presented  by  his  address.  Why  wiis  he  urging  that  a diversion 
from  foreign  to  home  investment  would  increase  employment  ? 
He  admitted  that  if  foreign  investment  declined  our  exports  would 
decline  correspondingly,  since  our  excess  of  exports  would  be 
equal  in  value  to  our  foreign  investment.  Why  thciefore  was  not 
the  loss  of  employment  in  the  cxpoit  trades  due  to  the  reduction 
of  foreign  investment  equal  to  the  gain  of  employment  resulting 
from  the  additional  in\estment  at  home?  Wc  may  revert  to 
his  argument  in  the  Nation  article  that,  when  a new  foreign 
investment  was  undertaken,  there  was  not  an  immediate  adjust- 
ment, until  in  due  course  there  had  been  a pressure  upon  the 
foreign-exchange  rates  necessary  to  promote  the  excess  of  exports 
required ; but  surely  this  maladjustment  was  “ short  run  ’’  even 
by  Keynes’  standard,  for  he  was  arguing  in  terms  c^f  a programme 
for  the  next  ten  years.  The  reference  to  a consequential  reduction 
in  our  standard  of  living  would  have  been  relevant,  h.id  he  been 
arguing  against  an  expansion  of  out  foreign  investment;  but  in 
fact  he  was  arguing  in  favour  of  a reduction.  Kcyne*^  tended  to 
fall  back  upon  his  argument  that  so  many  of  these  foreigii  invest- 
ments came  to  a bad  end;  but  that  was  another  point;  it  did 
not  show  that  while  they  were  going  on  they  were  ari)  less  good 
for  employment  than  a corresponding  value  of  investment  at 
home.  No  really  .satisl..ctory  explanation  was  olfcred. 

Throughout  the  discussion  Keynes  seemed  to  have  the  idea 
that  there  was,  so  to  speak,  a lump  of  saving.  He  argued  as  follow^s. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  National  Debt  Commissioners  contributed 
/^loo  million  to  the  Sinking  Fund.  Holders  of  the  Debt  paid  off 
would,  by  hypothesis,  be  either  trustees  or  the  type  of  investors 
who  like  trustee  securitl"'..  They  would  then  seek  about  for  the 
next  best  thing,  and  find  it,  under  the  influence  of  the  Trustee 
Act,  in  overseas  investment.  How  much  better,  Keynes  argued, 
if  that  £100  million  went  to  home  development.  There  was  in 
his  conception  a definite  amount  of  saving  which  could  cither  be 
applied  one  way  or  the  other.  There  was  no  hint  of  the  notion 
that  when,  at  a time  of  domestic  unemployment,  the  authorities 


352  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1924 

stimulated  certain  domestic  capital  developments^  the  additional 
activity  and  income-earning  would  themselves  generate  part  or  all 
of  the  savings  required  to  finance  the  development.  At  this  point 
Keynes  was  ill-equipped  to  combat  what  came  to  be  called  the 
Treasury  view,  which  was  that  public  works  simply  diverted 
savings  from  one  outlet  to  another  and  failed  to  increase  total 
activity.  Mr.  Hawtrey  himself,  whose  writings  on  credit  and 
banking  policy  greatly  influenced  Keynes  in  other  respects,  sub- 
scribed to  the  Treasury  view  in  this  matter.  According  to  him, 
if  one  expanded  public  works  without  expanding  bank  credit,  one 
did  not  add  to  employment ; if  one  expanded  bank  credit,  one 
could  add  to  employment  without  public  works. 

If  one  asked  why,  if  payable  projects  existed  at  home,  private 
enterprise  had  not  found  them  out,  Keynes  offeied  an  ad  hoc  and 
personal,  lather  than  a theorelital,  answer.  There  was  as  yet 
no  hint  that  “ liquidity  prcfeicncc  iDrevented  the  rate  of  interest 
falling  to  its  proper  level,  which  would  lender  the  projects  in 
question  payable.  Inste.id  we  have  the  explanation  that  there 
is  no  sphere  where  private  initiative  is  so  lacking  —lor  quite 
intelligible  reasons  — as  in  the  conception  aiyi  execution  of  very 
costly  projects  which  ma>  be  expected  (o  yield  lioni  5 to  G per 
cent  (AVe  need  not,  of  course,  reject  this  institutional  explana- 
tion, even  when  we  have  the  benefit  of  a theoretical  one  to 
reinforce  it.) 

When  we  have  Ke)nes’  Genet al  Theoiy  (iq^G)  in  oui  hands,  it 
is  eiisy  in  letrospecl  to  give  a theoretical  delencc  of  the  practical 
polic)  which  he  outlined  in  1924.  The  Theory  of  the  Multiplier 
gives  the  answer  to  the  Treasury  view,  which  is  based  on  the 
idea  of  a lump  of  savings.  The  liquidity  preference  ” theory 
of  interest  explains  why  payable  domestic  projects  are  not  put  in 
hand.  Finally,  the  Multiplier  theory  explains  both  why  domestic 
public  works  will  give  inoic  employment  than  foicign  invest- 
ment, and  also  why  — e\en  when  we  have  abandoned  the  lump 
of  savings  theoiy — some  discouragement  of  foreign  investment  will 
be  needed  to  make  way  for  home  investment.  If  the  economy 
passes  from  a state  of  considerable  unemployment  to  one  of  much 
greater  activity,  imports  will  rise  and,  given  the  standard  of  living, 
the  excess  of  exports  over  imports  will  be  reduced.  Thus  the 
funds  available  for  foreign  investment  will  be  reduced,  not  as 
Keynes  seemed  to  imply  at  this  early  stage  by  the  exact  amount 
of  the  home  investment,  but  by  a different  amount  which  depends 


AET  41]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  353 

on  the  marginal  propensity  to  import.  Thus  a text-book  explana- 
tion can  now  be  given  of  the  whole  programme  which  Keynes 
propounded  in  1924 

He  did  not  give  it  himself  at  the  time^  and  for  that  reason 
his  plea  lacked  something  in  final  potenev  When  Cobden  and 
Bright  undertook  their  great  campaign,  they  could  alwa\s  re- 
inforce their  ad  hoc  pluform  arguments  by  the  moie  fundamental 
reasoning  to  Jicdeined  fi  oiri  the  pages  of  Adam  Smith  and  Ricardo 
Keynes  was  still  lacking  in  the  support  of  more  fundamental  modes 
of  argument,  and  in  due  couise  had  to  foigc  them  for  himself.  At 
the  close  of  1924  he  was  ah  cad  y planning  111  his  head  a tieatisc 
on  the  credit  eye  Ic  He  did  not  the  n know  how'  long  and  lahoiious 
the  way  wis  to  be  before  his  ideas  took  final  shape  it  inaeed 
final  is  the  right  word,  for  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  with  life 
and  leisiiie  Keynes  would  have  reached  a furlhcr  stage  in  the 
development  of  his  own  thought 

Later  in  the  year  (Octobei)  he  had  another  opportunity 
to  ventilate  his  views  about  savings  and  investment  A Com- 
mittee was  sitting  in  ordci  to  rcpoit  on  laxation  and  the 
National  Debt  i^the  Colwyn  Commit  lee)  lie  made  his  point 
about  the  Tiuslec  Act  He  also  departed  from  the  austciitv  of 
orthodoxy  by  holding  that  it  was  not  necessarily  desirable  to 
fund  as  much  of  the  shoit-tcrm  debt  as  possible,  the  quantities 
of  short-term  debt  and  long-term  debt  available  should  be  au  anged 
to  suit  the  taste  of  the  market  \^hlle  iccogmsmg  the  value  of  a 
Sinking  Fund  he  did  not  subscribe  to  the  viitues  of  a large  one  m 
the  existing  circumstances,  the  ndemption  of  debt  might  mean 
taking  money  from  the  enterprising  to  put  it  into  the  in  nds  of 
those  who  prefer  gilt-tdged  security,  they  in  their  turn  would 
lend  abroad  A large  binking  I and  would  be  d(  arable  if  it  were 
combined  with  a laige  progicunme  of  public  works,  which  would 
provide  the  productive  outlet  at  home  for  the  capital  made 
available  by  the  Sinking  Fund  He  also  proposed  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Committee  a scheme  for  State  Bonds,  which 
would  have  a guaiaritc  d stable  commodity  valiio  I his  might 
attract  certain  investors  and  was  in  line  with  his  geiieial  advticacv 
of  a stable  curiency  ^ He  gave  evidence  again  m the  following 
spring  explaining  why  he  was  opposed  to  a C apital  Levy  in 
existing  conditions 

* Somt.  of  his  vltw^  appear  in  his  review  )ii  the  Rt-port  of  ^ht  f oinniillct  in  the 
Bccmmic  Journal^  June  1927 


354  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [192^ 

His  academic  work  gained  recognition  at  this  time  by  his 
being  made  a foreign  member  of  the  Swedish  Academy  of 
Science 

In  the  political  world  he  returned  to  the  charge  in  the  General 
Election,  making  a speech  at  a big  rally  in  Cambridge  in  support 
of  the  boiough  laberal  candidate  He  ciiticised  the  Russian  loan 
and  continued  to  give  warning  against  the  dangers  of  Protection. 

Meanwhile  he  had  other  intellectual  tasks  to  perform  m the 
course  of  1924  On  13th  July  Alfred  Mai  shall  died,  and  Keynes 
set  himself  to  compose  the  obituary  notice  for  the  Economic  Journal,^ 
Mary  Marshall,  the  economist’s  widow,  wrote  to  Keynes’  mother, 
“ I am  indeed  glad  that  Maynard  is  writing  it,  for  he  will  do  it 
beautifully  and  Alfred  was  pioud  to  count  him  among  his  pupils 
The  note  ran  to  si\ty-two  pages  and  is  of  permanent  value,  since 
It  contains  Keynes’  sumniaiy  of  what  he  legaided  as  Marshalls 
principal  ongmal  contiibutions  to  economics  It  is  also  a fine 
example  of  tlu  biogi  iphci’s  art  Keynes  had  shown  his  power  of 
portraying  the  weaknesses  of  his  adversaries  111  vivid  and  unfor- 
gettable touches,  now  he  proved  that  he  could  do  a balanced 
portrait,  fashioned  with  the  loMng  cue  of^a  pupil,  but  not 
omitting  criticism  He  made  Mai  shall  h\e  for  his  readers  and 
endeared  him  to  them , ind  his  arcount  o(  the  Ctimbndge  back- 
ground IS  also  of  a/3idmg  interest 

A little  liter  he  contributed  to  the  Nation  a shoit  obituary 
sketch  of  his  old  suppoiter  at  the  Cambndge  Union  and  colleague 
m Pans,  Ldwm  Montagu 

The  Siclnes  Pall  1 oundation  invited  him  to  give  its  annual 
Lecture  at  Oxford.  The  title  he  chose  was  The  End  of  I aissez- 
hatred  He  was  hot  on  the  tiail  now  The  foundations  of  old- 
fashioned  Libeialism  were  to  be  finally  demolished  and  a philo- 
sophical background  provided  for  the  new  policy  He  knew 
that  Oxford  was  well  rcid  m the  gieat  thinkers  of  the  past,  and 
nghtly  judged  that  it  would  intrigue  his  audience  to  hear  his 
comments  on  them  His  address  was  an  elegant  performance, 

* S(p  tniUr  1924  llic  issue  wis  sonicwhdt  dtliyed  lellow  editor,  t Y 
1 dcft worth,  infc  rmed  me  thit  hr  regarded  the  dcla>  as  amply  justified  by  the  superb 
notice  Stc  footnote  on  p 142 

* 29th  November  I9'’4  It  was  reprinted  in  Fisajs  in  Bi  gtaphy 

3 Fhe  Ind  of  Latssez  Fave  wns  published  by  Leonaid  and  Virgimi  Woolf  at  the 
Hogarth  Press  m 1926,  being  based  on  the  Sidne>  Ball  lecture  delivered  before  the 
University  of  Oxfoid  in  19^4  and  a kr  lure  delivend  before  the  University  of  Berlin 
in  I92r)  ('su  b<lov^^  p ^78  ) 


AET  41]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  355 

he  leapt  from  idea  to  idea  with  fascinating  agility,  picking  up 
the  various  strands  of  thought  that  contributed  to  the  nineteenth- 
century  doctrine  of  lai^^ez-faire.  Although  his  presentation  was 
witty  and  adroit,  it  was  not  completely  satisfying,  since  this 
part  of  his  task  was  destructive  and  the  time  at  his  disposal 
brief.  His  treatment  of  the  great  thinkers,  whose  first  editions 
he  was  so  zealously  collecting  at  this  time,  was  in^'^ntably  some- 
what cavalier.  lie  sought  targc'ts  for  attack,  to  the  neglect  of  the 
profound  wisdom  of  the  great  men,  Locke,  Hume,  Rousseau, 
Bcntham,  Buike,  Paley,  Mai  thus,  Darwin,  whose  name's  bespeckled 
his  pages. 

The  second  part  of  his  discourse  was  concerned  with  the 
principles  of  policy  in  a society  that  had  abandoned  laissez-Jaiye, 
In  retrospect  his  proposals  appear  cvtiaorclinaiih  mode‘^.  In 
the  first  place,  he  cried  what  he  called  the  “ ^df-sociahsalion  ” 
of  big  concerns,  of  which  the  prime  example  was  the  Bank  of 
England,  whose  policy  was  uninfluenced  by  the  quest  to  maximise 
dividends  and  was  solely  governed  bv  considerations  of  efficiency 
and  public  interest.  This  was  a development  to  be  encouraged. 
If  it  proceeded,  as  it  was  biddrng  fair  to  do,  it  would  remewe  the 
necessity  for  State  Socialism.  “ Thei e is,  lor  instanc  e,  no  so-c  ailed 
important  politic«il  queslioii  so  icallv  unimpcatant,  so  irrelevant 
icj  the  recHganisalion  of  the  economic  life  of  Great  Britain,  as  the 
nationalisation  of  the  lailways."’ 

Next  he  pi oc ceded  to  policies  where  this  solution  did  not 
apply. 

I come  next  to  a ciitenon  of  Agenda  which  is  pailicularK 
rc'lcvam  to  wliat  it  is  <igent  and  dcsiialde  m do  in  the  neai  futiiie 
We  mu*^!  aim  at  scpaialing  tli  jsc  mimc  s which  aie  tcchnually 
social  fiom  those  which  aie  technically  individual.  The  most 
impoitant  Agenda  of  die  Stale  ulaU  not  to  those  activities  which 
private  individuals  aic  alreadv  fulfilling,  but  to  thooC  lunc  Lions 
which  fall  outside  the  spheic  of  the  individual,  to  those  decisions 
which  aic  made  by  n > one  if  the  State  does  not  make  them.  The 
impoi  tanl  thing  for  GoVv  1 nmeiit  is  not  to  do  things  which  individuals 
aie  doing  already,  and  to  do  them  a little  better  or  a little  woise, 
but  to  do  those  things  which  at  present  arc  not  done  at  all 

He  proceeded  to  deal  with  managed  currency,  and  then  ; 

My  second  example  relates  to  Savings  and  Investment.  I 
believe  that  some  co-ordinated  act  of  intelligent  judgment  is  required 


356  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1924 

as  to  the  scale  on  which  it  is  desirable  that  the  community  as  a whole 
should  save,  the  scale  on  which  these  savings  should  go  abroad  in  the 
form  of  foreign  investments,  and  whether  the  present  organisation  of 
the  investment  market  distributes  savings  along  the  most  nationally 
productive  channels.  I do  not  think  that  these  matters  should  be  left 
entirely  to  the  chances  of  private  judgment  and  private  piofits,  as 
they  are  at  present. 

His  third  example  concerned  the  need  for  a population  policy. 

In  his  final  section  he  confessed  discontent  with  the  piedoinin- 
ance  of  the  money  motive  in  the  lives  of  many  : 

Theic  is  nothing  in  these  leflcctions  which  is  seiiously  incom- 
patible with  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  essential  chai  at  Leristic  of 
Capitalism,  namely  the  dependence  upon  an  intense  appeal  to  the 
money-making  and  money-loving  instincts  of  individuals  as  the  mam 
motive  force  of  the  economic  machine.  . . . 

In  Europe,  or  at  least  in  some  parts  of  Eiuope  — but  not,  I 
think,  m the  United  States  of  Ameiica—  there  is  a latent  reaction 
somewhat  widespread,  against  basing  Society  to  the  extent  that  we 
do  upon  fostenne,  encouraging,  and  protecting  the  mone) -inoti\cs 
of  individuals  . . . Most  religions  and  most  pli^osophics  clepiec  ate, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  a way  of  life  mainlv  influenced  by  consicleiations 
of  peisonal  money  profit.  On  the  other  hand,  most  men  lo-da} 
reject  ascetic  notions  and  do  not  doubt  the  real  advantages  of  wealth. 
Moreover,  it  seems  obvious  to  them  that  one  cannot  do  without  the 
moncv-motiv c,  and  that,  apart  fiom  certain  admitted  abuses,  it 
does  its  job  well  For  my  I think  that  Capitalism,  wisely 

managed,  can  ptoliably  be  m.ide  nioic  efiicient  foi  attaining 
economic  ends  than  any  alternative  system  >et  in  sight,  but  that 
in  itself  it  is  in  many  ways  extremely  olijcctionablc  Our  problem 
is  to  w^ork  out  a social  organization  which  shall  be  as  efficient 
as  possible  without  offending  our  notions  of  a satisfactory  way 
of  life. 

The  next  step  forward  must  come,  not  from  political  agitation 
or  premature  experiments,  but  from  thought.  We  need  by  an  effort 
of  the  mind  to  elucidate  our  own  feelings.  At  present  our  sympathy 
and  our  judgment  are  liable  to  be  on  different  sides,  which  is  a 
painful  and  paralysing  state  of  mind.  . . . There  is  no  party  in  the 
world  at  present  which  appears  to  me  to  be  pursuing  right  aims  by 
right  methods.  Material  poverty  provides  the  incentive  to  change 
precisely  in  situations  where  there  is  very  little  margin  for  experi- 
ments. Material  prosperity  removes  the  incentive  just  when  it 
might  be  safe  to  take  a chance.  Europe  lacks  the  means,  America 
the  will,  to  make  a move.  We  need  a new  set  of  convictions  which 


AET.  41]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  357 

spring  naturally  from  a candid  examination  of  our  own  inner  feeb'ngs 

in  relation  to  the  outside  facts 

There  the  matter  rested.  What  then?  He  had  not  yet 
thought  things  through. 

4 

In  the  second  half  of  1924  sterling  began  to  rise  in  a sinister 
manner  in  the  foreign-exchange  market.  Thv.  originating 
impulse  was  obscure ; it  may  have  been  connected  with  Federal 
Reserv'e  policy ; Ainerica  had  a minor  trade  recession  in  that 
year,  and  the  Federal  Reserve  system,  in  accordanc(  with  its  now 
well-establislied  practice,  pioceedcd  to  pump  in  credit  in  order 
to  stimulate  trade;  this  may  have  been  the  initial  cause  of  the 
weakening  of  the  dollar  against  sterling.  Be  that  as  it  may,  there 
is  no  doubt  about  what  was  responsible  fr>r  the  continuing  major 
upward  movement ; a return  to  the  old  Gold  Standard  was 
definitely  in  the  air  now,  and  bulls  were  Imying  sterling  at  a 
discount  in  order  to  make  a profit  when  the  old  parity  should  be 
re-established.  The  important  tiling  to  notice  was  that  the  rise 
in  sterling  did  not  reflect  a reduction  in  British  costs  or  a rise  in 
American  prices. 

Keynes  continued  to  hold  that  we  sliould  not  return  to  the 
Gold  Standard  at  all ; as  the  montlis  moved  on,  he  seemed  to  be 
more  and  more  isolated  in  this  opinion.  Even  tlic>sc,  whose  views 
on  monetary  policy  were  very  near  to  his,  thought  tha.  wc  should 
return.  He  was  close  in  accord,  for  instance,  with  Mr.  R.  G. 
Hawtrey  on  tiie  sulijecl  of  banking  policy  and  owed  much  to  his 
writing.^  Mr.  Hawtrey  hoped  that  under  cover  of  the  Gold 
Standard  internatioii.  i co-operati(ni  in  luaiiaging  the  value  of 
money  might  be  achieved  on  die  lines  cf  the  resolutions  of  the 
Genoa  Conference,  in  securing  the  adoption  of  which  he  had 
played  a principal  part.  Reginald  McKenna,  now  Chairman  of 
the  Midland  Bank,  was  a fervent  advocate  of  a managed  currency 
on  lines  similar  to  those  desired  by  Keynes.  But  he  too  thought 
that  the  thing  could  be  »Ione  under  the  aegis  of  a Gold  Standard. 
In  the  political  world  even  his  old  friend  Asquith  (now  Lord 
Oxford)  felt  it  necessary  to  pronounce  in  favour  of  a return  to 
gold  at  a meeting  of  the  Cambridge  University  Liberal  Club  — a 
most  unkind  cut ! ^ Keynes  was  a voice  in  the  wilderness.  There 

* All  quotations  taken  from  the  pamphlet  as  it  finally  appeared. 

* In  the  autumn  of  1922  he  held  Mr.  liawlrcy  up  to  me, as  the  best  writer  on 

currency  and  credit.  ’ 9^**  March  1925. 


358  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1925 

hardly  seemed  now  to  be  any  respectable  opinion  on  his  side. 
It  was  a remarkable  example  of  courage  of  conviction  in  a good 
cause.  Only  seven  years  later  the  great  mass  of  opinion  had  come 
over,  deeming  that  the  return  in  1925  to  the  pre-war  parity  had 
been  a disastrous  mistake.  Keynes  continued  his  advocacy  by 
speaking  and  writing  until  the  bitter  end.  He  contributed  two 
important  articles  to  the  Nation  on  21st  February  and  7th  March 
1925.  He  caused  some  surprise  in  the  latter  by  supporting  the 
recent  rise  in  the  Bank  Rate,  as  he  deemed  that  the  internal 
situation  now  justified  it.  This  was  not  an  inconsistency.  If  a 
currency  is  to  be  well  managed,  it  docs  not  follow  that,  if  a rise 
in  the  Bank  Rate  was  wrong  in  mid- 1923,  it  was  also  necessarily 
wrong  in  1925.  On  i8th  March  he  dclivtned  an  address  before 
the  Commercial  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  restating 
his  views. 

As  the  danger  of  the  return  became  imminent,  his  interest 
naturally  shifted  from  the  superiority  of  a managed  currency,  as 
such,  over  a Gold  Standard,  to  the  error  of  re-establishing  the 
Gold  Standard  at  the  pre-war  parity.  He  contributed  two  articles 
to  the  Nation  (4th  and  i8th  April)  on  the » over- valuation  of 
sterling.  It  was  difficult  to  prove  the  point  precisely  by  means 
of  index  numbers,  since,  as  he  repeatedly  pointed  out,  general 
index  numbers  of  wholesale  prices  tend  to  move  with  the  actual 
established  rates  of  exchange  and  fail  therefore  to  reflect  internal 
prices  and  i osts ; but  it  is  these  latter  that  are  relevant  when  we 
want  to  judge  whether  an  actual  rate  of  exchange  is  or  is  not 
at  an  equilibrium  level.  Keynes  was  on  strong  ground  in  holding 
that  if  the  exchange  was  in  equilibrium  in  mid- 1924  it  was  certainly 
out  of  equilibrium  in  the  spring  of  1925,  since  the  sterling  exchange 
had  moved  up  by  some  10  per  cent,  while  British  costs  had  not 
fallen  nor  American  prices  risen. 

The  now  inevitable  return  to  the  Gold  Standard  occurred  on 
29th  April.  This  was  a bitter  disappointment  to  Keynes.  He 
saw  in  it  the  triumph  of  unreasoning  prejudice.  On  the  morrow 
he  made  a mistake,  which  was  perhaps  due  to  his  ever  buoyant 
optimism.  He  clung  to  the  hope  that  things  could  not  be 
as  black  as  they  seemed.  By  a misunderstanding  of  the  legal 
position,  he  assumed  too  hastily  we  had  only  half  gone  back  to 
the  Gold  Standard,  that  we  had  imposed  a maximum  but  not  a 
minimum  price  for  gold,  so  that  the  foreign  exchange  would  still 
be  free  to  fluctuate  in  a range  above  the  old  parity ; he  welcomed 


AET.  41]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  359 

this ; things  would  not  be  too  bad,  if  only  an  inflation  developed 
in  America  raising  prices  there  by  the  necessary  10  per  cent.  He 
had  to  make  a recantation  in  a Icttei  to  The  Times  ^ and  in  the 
following  issue  of  the  Nation^ 

On  loth  June  of  the  preceding ^car  (1924.)  Mi.  Philip  Snowden 
(then  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer)  had  appointed  a strong 
committee  to  advise  him  on  the  amalgamation  ol  die  Treasury 
note  issue  with  that  of  the  Bank  of  England.  This  committee 
consisted  of  Lord  Bradbury,  Mi.  Gaspard  1 errci.  Sir  Otto 
Niemeyer  and  Professor  Pigou.  Keanes  ga\c  evidence  on  this 
technical  point.  Some  time  afterwards  the  (omnnttce  \va  evid- 
ently asked  to  diveil  its  attention  to  the  liroader  is'.ue  ol  the  icturn  to 
the  Gold  Standard.  In  his  Budget  spcc(  h .innoiincing  the  return, 
Mr.  Churchill,  who  had  become  Chancclloi,  refetred  to  the  Report 
as  containing  a reasoned  marshalling  of  the  u<nimenls  In  fact 
the  committee  contented  itself  with  a somewhat  summ  iry  suivey. 
It  had  not  consideicd  how  the  whole  lange  ol  piue^'  and  wages 
111  Britain  were  to  be  reduct d,  in  order  to  tiring  the  mttinal  value 
of  the  currency  into  line  with  its  enhaiKccl  extcunl  value,  nor 
did  It  consider  any  of  the  major  problems  connected  with  the 
ictuin.  Keynes  piUhed  into  this  report  with  great  (tiotity  in  an 
article  in  the  Fjonmic  Journal  For  him  this  was  a grim  moment. 
All  his  hopes  for  basing  a new  policy  for  capitalism  on  a managed 
currency  were  dashed  In  view  of  the  Chancellor's  description, 
he  argued,  one  might  have  expected  a weighty  document,  com- 
parable with  die  lf>ng  chain  of  ckissic  reports  on  British  cunency, 
or  at  least  an  “ armoury  of  up-to-date  arguments  in  favour  of 
old-fashioned  expedients.  But  we  find  instead  a few  pages, 
indolent,  jejune.” 

In  such  a case  it  did  not  occur  to  him  that  aspenty  should 
be  reduced  in  ordei  to  avoid  hurting  feelings.  Ihe  committee 
included  Professor  Pigou.  Ihis  was  not  an  anonymous  banker, 
but  his  very  old  friend,  his  colleague,  his  teacher,  his  benefactor. 
He  may  have  judged,  if  he  pondered  upon  the  matter,  that  Pro- 
fessor Pigou  had  a cert  m giandeui  of  soul  which  would  enable 
him  to  receive  such  knocks  in  good  pait,  if  he  knew  that  they  were 
actuated  by  sinceie  conviction  Not  all  his  adveisaries  thiough 
life  were  of  such  temper.  It  has  to  be  recorded  that  all  seemed 
fair  to  him  in  controversial  warfare,  and  that  he  seldom  paused 
to  consider  whether  what  his  cause  gained  by  the  insertion  of 

* 6th  May  ig-iS  * 9th  Ma-  1925  ’ June  1925 


36o  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1925 

an  expression  of  obloquy  was  enough  to  justify  the  pain  that  it 
might  give. 

Inflation  did  not  come  in  Ameiica;  the  Federal  Reserve 
System  kept  business  running  in  1925  on  a fairly  even  keel.  To 
his  horror,  but  not  to  his  surprise,  Keynes  found  that  the  British 
authorities  were  not  putting  in  operation  any  plan  to  reduce 
costs  in  Britain  and  bring  them  into  line  with  the  new  gold  parity. 
It  appeared  that  the  first  industry  to  suffer  the  full  impact  would 
be  the  coal  industry,  for  this  hatl  a large  export  trade  with  many 
frontiers  of  keen  competition,  and  wages  constituted  much  the 
largest  part  of  its  cost  of  production.  It  was  impossible  for  the 
coal  industry  to  keep  its  export  markets,  save  by  exporting  at  a 
loss  or  by  the  reduction  of  wages.  Accordingly  it  was  decided 
that  wages  must  be  reduced,  and  a grave  crisis  threatened. 
Keynes  judged  that  this  was  but  the  first  inslalment  of  troubles 
to  come. 

He  got  to  work  and  composed  three  articles  for  the  Evening 
Standard  — whic  h on  the  whole  had  been  sound  on  the  gold 
question  — and  these  he  jmblished  in  a pamphlet  with  the 
Hogarth  Press  (Leonard  and  \^rginia  Woolf)  itndcr  the  title  The 
Economic  Consequences  oj  Mk  ChuuhilL  Once  thought  of,  such  a 
title  was  irresistible,  if  one  desired  one’s  words  to  be  read  by  as 
many  as  possible,  dt  did  not  imply  that  Keanes  lelt  that  much 
personal  blame  should  be  attached  to  Mr,  Churchill.  His  attack 
was  directed  in  part  against  populai  clamour,  but  first  and  fore- 
most against  the  experts  who  had  advised  the  Chancellor.  This 
was  made  plain  in  the  pamphlet.  Some  years  later  Keynes  ^\iote 
two  reviews  ol  Mr.  Churchill’s  The  Woyld  Ctisis  (March  1927  and 
Mai'ch  1929),  which  were  leproduced  in  Essays  in  Biography. 
These  show  that  Keynes  had  not  only  an  intellectual  appreciation 
of  Mr.  Churchill’s  gifts,  but  also  a certain  warmth  of  sympathy 
for  one  whose  type  of  mind  was  very  different  from  his  own.  Wc 
may  quote  his  roncluding  paragraph  : 

The  chronicle  is  finished.  With  what  feelings  does  one  lay  down 
Mr.  Churchill’s  two-thousandth  page?  Gratitude  to  one  who  can 
write  with  so  much  eloquence  and  feeling  of  things  which  are  part  of 
the  lives  of  all  of  us  of  the  war  generation,  but  which  he  saw  and 
knew  much  closer  and  clearer  Admiration  for  his  energies  of  mind 
and  his  intense  absorption  of  intellectual  interest  and  elemental 
emotion  in  what  is  for  the  moment  the  matter  in  hand  — which  is 
his  best  quality.  A litde  envy,  perhaps,  for  his  undoubting  con- 


AET  42]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  361 

viction  that  frontiers,  races,  patriotism,  even  wars  il  need  be,  arc 
ultimate  verities  for  mankind,  which  lends  for  him  a kind  of  dignity 
and  even  nobility  to  events,  which  for  others  are  only  a nightmare 
interlude,  something  to  be  permanently  avoided. 

These  words  were  written  eleven  years  before  the  sublime  apogee 
of  Mr.  ChurcliiH’s  great  career. 

Keynes’  pamphlet  was  composed  in  his  finest  ontroversial 
style.  Evciy  sentence  told.  The  arguments  w^crc  unanswerable, 
and  the  reviewers,  mainly  hostile,  could  only  fume  and  splutter. 
We  had  deliberately  raised  the  cxteinal  value  of  the  cuncncy 
by  10  per  cent  and  had  not  planned  for  adjusting  internal  values. 
Woikers  in  export  industries  would  be  loquired  to  reduce  their 
wages ; this  would  be  quite  a reasonable  projiosition  if  there 
were  any  plan  for  1 educing  all  pi  ices  and  wages  in  the  country 
in  similai  proportion,  so  that  the  money  wage  i eductions  w^ould 
be  only  nominal  and  not  imply  any  loss  in  standards  of  living.  If 
this  was  not  done  — and  there  was  no  plan  to  do  it  — workers 
in  the  export  trades  would  suffer  gratuitous  hardship.  Or  was 
there  a plan  to  do  it  ? If  there  was,  it  apparently  consisted  in  a 
deflationary  policy,  w^hich  meant  in  essence  the  creation  of 
sufficiently  massive  unemployment  by  the  restriction  of  credit  to 
enable  one  to  impose  wage-cuts  bv  fone  majeuie  — a terrible 
process  which  it  might  take  years  to  carry  through  to  the  bitter 
end,  and  one  not  conducive  to  high  production  or  industrial 
progt  ess  in  the  interval.  Meanwhile  valued  export  markets  would 
be  lost,  peihaps  irretrievably. 

A year  before  there  had  been  no  sufficient  reason  for  a reduc- 
tion in  the  coal  miners  wages.  Now  they  were  bring  faced  with 
the  alternative  of  such  a reduction  or  unemployment,  and  it 
would  not  be  easy  tor  them  to  find  work  elsewhere : 

On  grounds  of  social  justice,  no  case  can  be  made  out  foi  re- 
ducing the  wages  of  the  miner's.  They  art*  the  victims  of  the  eco- 
nomic Juggernaut.  They  represent  in  the  flesh  the  “ fundamental 
adjustments  ” engineered  by  the  Treasury  and  the  Bank  of  England 
to  satisfy  the  impatience  of  the  City  fathers  to  bridge  the  “ moderate 
gap  **  between  $4*40  and  }4'86.  They  (and  others  to  follow)  are 
the  “ moderate  sacrifice  ” still  necessary  to  ensure  the  stability  of 
the  gold  standard. 

He  put  forward  a constructive  proposal  that  the  Government 
should  take  steps  to  negotiate  an  all  round  5 per  cent  cut  in  wages 


362  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1925 

and  salaries,  subject  to  a guarantee  that  prices  would  fall  corre- 
spondingly ; to  secure  equity  as  between  wage  and  salary  earners 
on  the  one  hand  and  property  owners  on  the  other,  he  proposed 
the  rough-and-ready  remedy  of  an  increase  in  the  Income  Tax  by 
ism  the  pound  Flic  economie  argument  of  the  pamphlet  was  sup- 
plemented by  an  impoilanl  letter  to  Thi  Fimes  0114th  September. 

His  words  were  unheeded  The  coal  industry  was  maintained 
in  action  by  a subsidy  duiing  the  winter,  and  the  nation  then 
suficied  the  great  disaster  of  die  Coal  Strike  and  the  General 
Strike  In  the  years  between  1925  and  1929  Britain’s  industrial 
progress  was  markedly  less  than  that  in  other  countries 


5 

I he  Liberal  Summer  School  at  Cambridge  no  doubt  expected 
to  hear  more  iboiu  gold  ind  coal.  But  he  judged  that  hi',  readers 
had  now  been  ^uikitcd  with  this  subject,  and  instead  he  read  a 
dclightlul  paper  entitled  “ Am  I a Libei  iP  ’ ' I his  set  out  111 
an  amusing  wav  the  dihmmi  of  having  to  choose  between  the 
inadequacies  of  Conseiv  itism  and  Soenhsm^and  expressed  his 
political  point  ol  view  which  I have  already  outlined^  It  may 
i)e  of  interest  to  quote  one  section  of  the  address  Readers  will 
not  have  forgotten  tint  all  thiough  those  crowded  years  Keanes 
wis  in  intimate  and  dailv  contact  with  his  Bloomsbury  friends 
They  were,  in  a sen«^e,  a difleient  woild  We  may  remember 
their  parimount  interest  in  the  subtler  problems  of  private  life 
We  can  imagine  their  chaffing  him,  and  saving,  “ Why  do  you 
politicians  never  talk  about  anything  that  reallv  matters^  On 
this  occasion  he  would  lake  up  the  challenge  Among  the  five 
topics  that  should  be  the  mun  concein  of  the  Libc'ral  Party  in 
the  future  he  included  “ Sex  Questions 

The  questions  which  I gioup  together  as  Sex  Questions  have  not 
been  p irty  questions  in  the  past  But  that  was  because  they  were 
never,  or  seldom,  the  subject  foi  public  discussion  All  this  is 
changed  now  Iheic  aie  no  subjects  about  which  the  big  general 
pul)hc  IS  rnoie  interested  , few  which  are  the  subject  of  wider  dis- 
cussion They  lie  of  the  utmost  social  importance,  thc>  cannot 
help  but  piovoke  real  and  sincere  diffciences  of  opinion  Some  of 
them  are  deeph  involv<  d in  the  solution  of  certain  economic 
questions  I cannot  doubt  that  Sex  Questions  are  about  to  enter  the 

* Reprinted  in  I s\ays  in  Permasion,  1931  * Sie  pp  330  34 


aet.421  return  to  the  gold  standard  363 

political  arena.  The  very  crude  beginnings  represented  by  the 
Suffrage  Movement  were  only  symptoms  of  deeper  and  more  im- 
portant issues  below  the  surface. 

Birth  Control  and  the  use  of  Contraceptives,  Marriage  Laws, 
the  treatment  of  sexual  offences  and  abnoi  malitics,  the  economic 
position  of  women,  the  economic  position  of  the*  family,  — in  all  these 
matters  the  existing  stale  of  the  Law  and  of  orthodoxy  is  still  medi- 
aeval — altogether  out  of  touch  with  c'ivilised  opinion  and  civilised 
practice  and  with  what  individuals,  educated  and  uneducated  alike, 
say  to  one  another  in  pri^’^atc.  Let  no  one  decei\e  himself  with  the 
idea  that  the  change  of  opini<3n  on  these  matl(Ts  is  one  which  only 
affects  a small  educated  class  on  the  crust  of  the  human  boiling. 
Let  no  one  suppose  that  it  is  the  w'orkiny  women  who  are  going  to  be 
shocked  by  ideas  of  Birth  Control  or  of  Divorce  Refoim.  k'or  them 
these  things  suggest  new  liberty,  ('inane i pa from  the  most 
intolerable  of  tyrannies.  A parly  which  would  discuss  these*  things 
openly  and  wisely  at  its  meetings  would  discover  a new  and  living 
interest  in  the  electorate  — iK'cause  politics  would  be  dealing  oncci 
more  with  the  matters  about  which  ev(*ry  one  wants  to  know  and 
which  deeply  affr'c  t every  one’s  owm  life*. 

These  questions  also  intcilock  with  cce^noiuic  issues  which  cannot 
be  evaded.  Birth  Control  touches  on  one  side  the  lil)(*rtirs  of  women, 
and  on  the  other  side  the  duty  of  the  State  to  conce*rn  itself  with  the 
size  of  the  population  just  as  niudi  as  with  the  size  of  the  aimy  or  the 
amount  of  the  Budget.  The  position  of  wage-earning  wiiincn  and 
the  project  of  the  Family  Wage  alfect  not  only  tlie  status  of  women, 
the  first  in  the  performance  of  paid  w'oik,  and  the  second  in  the 
performance  of  unpaid  w'ork,  but  also  raise*  tlic  whole  question 
whether  wages  should  be  fixed  by  the  forces  of  wsupjrly  and 
demand  in  accordance  with  the  orthodox  theories  of  lamez-faires 
or  whether  we  should  begin  to  limit  the  frec'dom  of  those  forces  by 
reference  to  w'hat  is  “fail  ” and  “reasonable”  ha\ing  iTgard  to  all 
circumstances. 

There  was  much  newspaper  comment  on  this  bold  sally. 
Once  again  I was  a member  of  the  audience  and  once  again  1 
had  the  feeling  that  my  neighbours  did  not  think  that  he  was 
giving  them,  in  this  part  of  his  discourse,  an  important  plank  for 
the  Liberal  Party  platform.  Twenty-five  years  have  passed  since 
this  oration,  and  much  of  what  he  said,  w'hich,  it  must  be  confessed, 
shocked  some  of  those  present,  has  passed  into  our  common  way 
of  thinking.^  In  this  field  too  he  was  a prophet  of  things  to  come, 

* Compare  in  this  connection  the  tone  and  temper  of  the  Report  of  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Popalation  (1949). 


364  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1925 

but  the  Liberal  Party  managers  may  have  been  wise  in  their 
generation  in  feeling  that  this  line  of  thought  was  not  well  suited 
to  retrieve  the  failing  fortunes  of  the  party. 

6 

The  great  production  of  the  Sleeping  Princess  (1921)  had  over- 
strained Dicighilev’s  finances,  and  for  a time  he  was  unable  to 
carry  on.  His  company  was  lu  temporary  dissolution.  In  1922 
Massine  collected  ccitain  members  of  it,  including  Lopokova,  and 
oiganiscd  some  productions  at  Govent  Garden  and  later  at  the 
Coliseum.  In  the  latter  case  the  rcpeitoiy  included  The  Mas- 
querade^ by  Vcia  Bowen,  a great  friend  of  Lydia.  In  1924  ele- 
ments of  ballet  with  Lopokova  were  introduced  into  a levue 
called  Ton'd  be  Suipnsed  at  Covent  Garden ; a little  later  she 
appeared  again  at  the  Coliseum.  She  also  appealed  in  Paris  in 
the  Soirees  dePans^  organised  by  Comte  Lticnnc  de  Beaumont,  and 
Keynes  got  ovei  to  sec  some  performances.  Only  towards  the 
end  of  1924  did  Diaghilev  reappear  in  London,  but  Lopokova 
was  not  of  the  company  on  that  occasion. 

Meanwhile  she  was  becoming  a familiar  figuie  m Bloomsbuiy. 
This  was  a stiangc  new  element  in  the  circle  of  fneads.  They 
were  delighted  by^  the  charming  simplicity  of  her  chaiactei,  her 
gaiety,  hci  jokes  and  sallies.  Her  struggles  with  English  were 
the  source  of  much  fun  in  the  eaily  days.  Her  remaik  is  remem- 
bered, “ I dislike  being  in  the  country  in  August,  because  my 
legs  get  so  liittcn  by  banisters 

All  were  struck  hy  her  complete  lack  of  vanity.  There  was 
no  trace  of  the  aiis  of  the  great  ballciina.  She  took  part  in 
charades  and  similar  amusements  at  46  Gordon  Square ; she  did 
not  disdain  to  perfoim  a pas  de  deux  with  Duncan  Giant,  until  he 
missed  his  footing  and  went  spinning  to  the  ground,  and  all  was 
dissolved  in  helpless  laughter. 

Some  time  during  these  years  the  great  decision  was  taken ; 
legal  matters  had  to  be  settled  up. 

Meanwhile  there  were  whispers  and  rumours  and  some  uneasi- 
ness in  Cambridge  among  the  older  generation.  It  was  known 
that  Keynes  had  strange  artistic  friends,  but  was  not  this  going 
rather  far?  Perhaps  some  of  the  senior  members  at  this  time 
had  culled  most  of  their  knowledge  of  the  ways  of  London  from 
their  excursions  there  in  the  1890’s.  “ Chorus  girls  ” in  those 


aet.42]  return  to  the  gold  standard  365 

days  were  not  considered  lughly  eligible  for  matrimony.  Did  the 
prefix  Russian  make  it  any  better?  Or  did  it  perhaps  make  it 
worse  ? They  had  not  Sir  Osbert  Sitwell  in  their  midst  to  explain 
to  them  about  the  highest  achievement  of  twentieth-century  art ; 
if  they  had,  they  would  probably  not  have  believed  him.  There 
was  distinct  uneasiness.  Keynes  might  be  a great  man,  but 
Cambridge  had  its  standards. 

Signor  Nitti,  a T.iberal  statesman  of  Italy,  and  a former 
Prime  Minister,  was  due  to  speak  at  the  Liberal  Summer  School 
of  1925.  Keynes  issued  a formal  invitation  to  various  pundits 
of  the  University  to  a luncheon  in  the  Combination  Room  of 
King’s  College  “ to  meet  Signor  Nitti  This  was  the  ostensible 
purpose  of  the  luncheon ; the  real  purpose  was  to  meet  Lydia 
Lopokova.  The  old  fogies  might  belong  to  the  backwoods,  but 
they  were  gentlepeople,  highly  trained  in  the  art  of  discernment 
in  such  matters,  and  in  tw^o  minutes  they  realised  that  Lydia  was 
something  totally  different  from  what  they  had  feared.  All  was 
well ; Cambridge  would  be  no  problem ; Lydia  was  accepted, 
and  in  due  course  won  the  hearts  of  the  seniors  in  the  University. 
Some  years  later  I was  seated  next  to  Mrs.  Alfred  Marshall 
at  a luncheon,  and  our  talk  turned  to  Keynes’  marriage.  “ The 
best  thing  that  Maynard  ever  did  ”,  remarked  that  venerable 
lady. 

The  marriage  took  place  on  4th  August  1925  at  the  Saint 
Pancras  Central  Registry  Offic  e in  the  presence  of  Dr.  and  Mrs. 
Keynes,  Mrs.  A.  V.  Hill  (his  sister),  Mr.  Duncan  Grant  and  Mrs. 
Harold  Bowen.  The  married  couple  went  off  to  Russia  to  meet 
Lydia’s  relations.  Keynes  wrote  three  delightful  articles  on 
Russia  for  the  Nation,  He  was  impressed  by  the  ‘‘  religious  ” 
quality  of  the  Communist  cxpeiiment,^  but  found  nothing  of 
economic  interest.  The  articles  were  published  by  the  Hogarth 
Press  under  the  title  of  A Short  View  of  Russia, 

To  the  majority  of  people  this  marriage  appeared  to  be  a 
crowning  episode  in  Keynes’  Bloomsbury  life  — and  for  a short 

' **  Now  that  the  deeds  are  done  and  there  is  no  Roing  back,  I should  like  to  give 
Russia  her  chance;  to  help  and  not  to  hinder.  For  how  much  rather,  even  after 
allowing  for  everything,  if  T were  a Russian,  would  I contribute  my  quota  of  activity 
to  Soviet  Russia  than  to  Tsarist  Russia ! I could  not  subscribe  to  the  new  ofHcial 
faith  any  more  than  to  the  old.  T should  detest  the  actions  of  the  new  tyrants  not 
less  than  those  of  the  old.  But  1 should  feel  that  my  eyes  were  turned  towards,  and 
no  longer  away  from,  the  possibilities  of  things ; that  out  of  the  crueltv  and  stupidity 
of  Old  Russia  nothing  could  ever  emerge,  but  that  beneath  the  (yuelty  and  stupidity 
of  the  New  Russia  some  speck  of  the  ielead  may  lie  hid  ” fp.  28). 


366  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [1925 

time  he  may  have  thought  that  it  would  be.  But  it  was  not  so  in 
fact ; indeed  it  was  to  prove  to  have  been  a turning  away  from 
Bloomsbury.  At  a deeper  level  Keynes  probably  knew  this.  The 
biographer  must  pause  at  the  threshold  and  not  seek  to  pry  among 
the  inner  eddies  of  his  subject’s  emotions.  The  secrets  of  the 
heart  must  remain  send.  None  the  less  there  were  certain 
salient  facts  in  this  connection  which  the  reader  should  know 
for  a proper  understanding ; a certain  pattern  may  be  detected 
and  an  interpi  etation  ventured. 

In  his  young  days  Keynes’  contacts  with  the  Lytton  Strachey 
circle,  and  above  all  with  Lytton  Strachey  himself,  were  a source 
of  joy  and  exhilaration.  The  revolt,  the  adventure  with  ideas, 
the  unknown  territories  to  be  explored,  the  finer  shades  of  feeling, 
the  wit  and  the  endless  drolleries  fired  his  imagination  and 
stimulated  his  thinking.  Then  came  the  broadening  out  into 
the  wider  Bloomsbury  circle,  in  which  miraculously  the  old 
atmosphere  was  preserved.  As  hidividutds  many  of  the  Blooms- 
bury friends  were  creative  artists  m the  fullest  sense.  As  a social 
group  they  were  essentially  critical  and  gently  mocking,  not  only 
vis-a-vis  the  outer  world,  but  vis-d-vis  one  ajiolhrr.  They  kept 
some  watch  on  Keynes,  delighted  with  his  sallies  against  the  great 
and  pompous,  heart  and  soul  with  him  in  his  pleas  for  justice, 
but  ready  to  be  dqubtful  when  he  consorted  too  much  with  Prime 
Ministers,  fearful  lest  he  be  tainted  by  the  vulgarities  that  are  apt 
to  be  associated  with  public  renown.  His  relation  with  the  friends 
was  one  of  personal  aflec  lion  ; the  intellectual  community  of 
interest  was  primarily  in  the  world  of  letters  and  philosophy. 
While  he  interested  himself  in  their  opinions  in  the  field  of  the 
visual  arts  and  was  eager  to  be  in  the  vanguard  of  their  movement, 
it  remains  doubtful  if  his  inner  soul  drew  much  sustenance  from 
visual  beauties. 

He  too,  in  his  main  life’s  work  so  far,  was  a critic,  conducting 
his  merciless  onslaught  on  politicians  and  bankers.  Agile  and 
ever  active,  darting  now  here,  now  there,  his  rapier  flashing,  he 
inspired  terror  in  a multitude  of  foes.  His  friends  sharpened 
their  wits  against  society  in  their  drawing-rooms ; he  did  so  in  a 
wider  arena,  while  they  cheered  him  on.  There  was  a certain 
restlessness  in  his  life.  It  is  true  that  he  focused  his  thoughts  on 
a few  fundamental  themes.  Reparations  and  the  restoration  of 
Europe,  Deflation,  the  Gold  Standard,  a programme  for  the 
Liberal  Party ; but  his  mode  of  life  with  his  journalistic  enter- 


aet.42]  return  to  the  gold  standard  367 

prises,  his  finance,  his  frequent  excursions  into  the  new  fields  of 
political  and  economic  controversy,  was  a little  flurried.  In 
London  he  was  at  the  centre  of  an  intellectual  movement ; his 
friends  were  fulfilling  themselves,  realising  their  capacities  and 
achieving  some  renown  individually  and  as  a group ; the  atmo- 
sphere was  exciting.  In  Cambridge  his  feelings  might  be  steadied 
by  the  quiet  rhythm  of  University  life,  but  there  too  there  was  the 
ferment  of  youth,  and  his  zeal  in  the  quest  for  true  spirits  in  each 
generation  did  not  flag. 

In  the  ten  years  to  come  the  basic  pattern  was  to  be  diflerent. 
'They  were  to  be  years,  not  primarily  of  criticism,  but  of  creation. 
He  was  profoundly  discontented  with  the  current  explanations 
of  trade  depression,  he  was  confident  that  his  fcllow^-cconomists 
had  not  thought  matters  through,  and  he  set  out  upon  the  task, 
not  knowing  at  first  how  great  it  was  to  prove,  of  clarifying  the 
issues.  In  the  event  he  was  to  create  an  app<iratus  of  thought 
for  analysing  our  economy  which  was  to  be  found  useful  by 
economists  the  world  over.  No  light  task!  His  apparatus  has 
the  appearance  of  beautiful  simplicity,  it  seems  the  merest  common 
sense,  but  the  task  of  devising  it  was  not  so  simple.  What  Adam 
Smith  wrote  in  the  Wealth  of  Matiom  seemed  to  be  but  common 
sense  ; but  the  world  had  had  to  wail  for  many  generations  before 
its  economic  affairs  were  sorted  out  and  described  by  Adam  Smith 
in  a way  which  seemed  so  clear  and  obvious  after  it  had  been 
achieved.  Keynes  could  not  completely  doff  the  role  of  critic ; 
he  had  to  give  vent  to  barbed  utterances  — some  thought  need- 
lessly — against  the  older  school  of  economists.  That,  however, 
was  not  his  main  work.  For  his  constructive  task,  cool,  steady, 
continuous  effort  was  needed.  The  seed  of  thought  had  to 
germinate  and  grow.  During  such  an  endeavour  the  basic  tempo 
of  the  soul  is  different.  By  some  mysterious  process  the  thought 
gathers,  forms  itself,  defines  itself.  It  must  be  protected  from  too 
much  dialectic  and  debate.  Mr.  D.  H.  Robertson’s  subtle 
criticisms,  which  in  the  early  days  proved  very  stimulating  to 
Keynes,  seemed  to  become  in  the  end  an  impediment  to  the  final 
fruition  of  his  ideas.  All  these  fine  points  have  their  time  and  place. 
One  is  on  the  track  of  a great  idea;  one  has  almost  seized  it, 
but  not  quite ; then  it  bursts  upon  one ; but  no,  one  is  not  at 
the  goal  yet ; for  is  not  this  idea  but  one  aspect  of  a still  wider 
generalisation  not  yet  grasped  ? Creation  is  a subtle  and  precari- 
ous activity.  The  creator  must  be  protected  for  the  time  from 


368  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  ti9*3 

overmuch  criticism,  else  the  impulse  will  die.  While  he  never 
lost  his  delight  in  the  erosive  and  mocking  comment  on  life  of 
his  Bloomsbury  friends,  it  may  be  that  he  would  not  have 
prospered  so  well  had  their  dialectic  been  the  main  background 
to  his  work. 

The  curve  of  the  dancer’s  leap  through  the  air,  the  tracing 
and  interweaving  of  lines  by  motions  perfectly  designed,  the  pose 
of  the  figure  come  to  rest,  every  inch  of  it  controlled  and  carrying 
its  meaning,  these  beauties  of  the  ballet  are  not  achieved  without 
years  of  hard  labour  and  experience,  yet,  when  achieved,  they  are 
direct  and  unimpeded  expression  of  emotion,  an  outflow  of  the 
soul  into  an  appropriate  form.  There  is  a spontaneity,  a joy  of 
life,  an  assertion.  We  are  far  removed  from  the  world  of  dialectic 
and  debate,  of  criticism  and  second  thoughts.  The  achievement 
is  perfect  — or  perhaps  it  is  not  perfect  — but  it  cannot  be 
amended.  “ Now,  Lydia,  if  you  would  drop  your  arms  a little 
more,  that  would  express  the  feeling  when  love  is  on  the  one  hand 
somewhat  . . All  this  is  of  no  use.  Lydia’s  droop  of  arms 
will  express  the  finest  possible  shade,  but  it  cannot  be  corrected 
in  detail  by  discussion  and  analysis.  This  art  achieves  its  purpose 
by  a direct  method ; there  may  be  trial  and  error ; but  each  new 
trial  is  a new  beginning  and  is  not  guided  by  reasoning  on  its 
path.  ^ 

The  emotion  to  be  expressed  is  defined  by  the  ballet  itself; 
it  must,  in  general,  be  a universal  emotion,  not  idiosyncratic. 
But  Lydia  had  a strongly  individual  character,  to  which,  despite 
the  rules,  she  gave  vent,  thus  imparting  an  element  of  character- 
acting.  This  was  not  in  the  strict  classical  tradition,  yet  was  so 
clearly  inspired  by  the  highest  genius  that  it  was  allowed ; the 
Diaghilev  Ballet  was  great  enough  to  assimilate  it  and  was 
enhanced  by  it.  And  so  the  public  saw  this  unique  personality 
expressing  something  new  and  strange,  something  piquant  and 
fascinating;  those  severe  and  hardly  won  techniques  which  the 
ballet  taught  were  subjected  to  her  individual  creative  impulse. 

She  was  like  that  in  private  life  also.  The  direct  expression 
of  feeling,  the  spontaneity,  the  inventiveness,  the  gaiety,  the  queer, 
unusual  ideas,  all  flowed  into  her  speech.  Her  aphorisms  or 
comments,  amusing,  wise,  or  perhaps  sheerly  fantastic,  were  her 
offerings  to  the  good  cheer  of  the  company.  To  Keynes  they  were 
meat  and  drink ; his  amusement  and  appreciation  never  flagged. 
Like  the  others,  he  was  an  aristocrat  in  his  tastes,  caring  only  for 


AST.  42]  RETURN  TO  THE  GOLD  STANDARD  369 

the  best;  subject  to  that,  he  was  cathplic.  Was  Bloomsbury 
becoming  a Uttle  stereotyped  ? He  at  least  ddij^ted  in  novdty 
and  freshness.  His  imag^ation  was  always  ready  to  be  stirred, 
even  by  the  most  absurd  fancy. 

Lyra’s  method  was  not  really  compatible  with  what  were  now 
frie  fixed  habits  of  Bloomsbury.  She  might  make  a sally.  “ Oh, 
Lydia,  how  fascinating;  now  do  you  suppose  that  ...”  Here 
clearly  was  material  for  a delightful  dissection,  gentle  mockery 
being  piled  on  top  of  mockery,  all  in  the  greatest  good  humour ; 
this  should  elicit  some  new  defensive  dictum,  to  be  thrown  into  the 
cauldron  and  added  to  the  excellent  dish  that  was  being  cooked 
up,  the  final  elucidation  of  all  the  fantastic  consequences  of  her  line 
of  thought,  the  reduclio  ad  abmdum  achieved  with  great  merriment. 
But  Lydia  had  not  the  appetite  for  all  this.  She  tripped  on  to 
another  quite  different  comment,  and  another,  and  then,  perhaps, 
relapsed  into  placidity,  silently  pursuing  her  own  tliread.  This 
was  frustrating  to  Bloomsbury ; they  felt  cheated  of  their  repast ; 
it  seemed  that  she  must  either  spoil  their  flow  of  reason  or  be  left 
out  of  it. 

The  flow  did  not  appeal  to  her.  The  mordant  irony  of  Vir- 
ginia Woolf,  her  mocking  comment,  her  remorselessness  in 
defining  exactly  how  things  were,  weighed  on  Lydia’s  spirits. 
She  found  these  highbrows  woefully  depressing  as  a group. 

Keynes  had  already  had  his  little  problems  with  his  different 
“ worlds  ”,  but  indeed  the  gulf  between  the  Asquiths  and  Blooms- 
bury, or  between  the  economists  and  Bloomsbury,  or,  for  that 
matter,  between  Lydia  and  either,  was  far  less  wide  than  that 
between  Lydia  and  Bloomsbury.  The  oil  and  water  would  not 
mix,  and  not  all  Keynes’  alchemy  could  make  them.  Their 
temperament  and  attitude  to  life  were  utterly  disparate. 

This  did  not  involve  any  breach.  Many  of  the  Bloomsbury 
friends  were  very  fond  of  Lydia ; they  continued  to  be  good 
friends,  and  were  constantly  in  and  out  of  the  house.  But  for 
Keynes  they  had  now  become  a dehghtful  recreation,  instead 
of  being  the  main  background  of  his  life.  It  was  a very  great 
change  in  his  mental  environment,  the  greatest  that  had  occurred 
since  he  left  Eton  for  Cambridge.  It  may  be  surmised  that, 
apart  from  the  obvious  blessings  which  flow  from  having  a wife 
whom  one  loves,  the  change  was  an  advantage  to  him  in  the  kind 
of  work  he  had  now  to  do,  first  the  great  creative  work  of  the  mind, 
and  then  his  public  work,  in  which  it  was  expediefit  that  he  should 


370  JOHN  MAYNARD  KEYNES  [x9*5 

be  mellow  and  comprehending,  rather  than  critical  and  sceptical. 
For  twenty  years  he  had  learnt  all  the  tricks  and  twists  and  turns 
of  the  critical  spirit.  His  education  in  that  field  was  complete. 
What  he  now  needed,  when  he  rested  from  his  tasks,  was  that 
repose  which  could  be  given  by  someone  whose  nature  was 
fundamentally  simple,  affirmative,  hopeful.  All  those  who  saw 
these  two  together  in  the  years  that  followed  will  bear  witness 
that  his  choice  was  triumphantly  vindicated.